Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's most up-to-day estimate of the energy savings that would accrue if the latest standards of energy efficiency in buildings were implemented.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): The Building Research Establishment has estimated that the proposals for amending the requirement in the building regulations for the conservation of fuel and power would improve the energy efficiency of new buildings by about 20 per cent. compared with existing regulations.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that if the Government were to back a scheme of energy conservation along the lines either of the Eurisol report or that of the Milton Keynes' energy cost effects, we could cut CO2 emissions by between 39 million and 43 million tonnes a year? Does he think that that would be an extremely good investment for the Government because at a stroke they would reduce those emissions and energy costs, and cut the need to build so many more power stations?

Mr. Spicer: The Government are in favour of energy conservation measures, but we must balance the position by accepting that, even taking account of energy conservation measures, on most estimates there will be a continuing increase in the demand for electricity. If one is interested in CO2 emissions, as the hon. Gentleman is and as we are, the issue is how to get balanced fuel production which will reduce CO2. That is why we are in favour of nuclear energy and why we are surprised that the Labour party is not.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that a great deal of energy is lost through the windows of our homes? How much longer will it be before he prevails on the Secretary of State for the Environment to have double glazing as an integral part of new build houses? That is needed as much as damp courses. If double glazing were installed at the beginning, it would save all the conversions which must take place later and it would be an enormous saving of energy.

Mr. Spicer: I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for building regulations. Only about 1 per cent. of building stock is replaced every year, so taking the 20 per cent. figure that I mentioned in my original answer, the potential savings are 1 per cent. of 20 per cent. The matter must be seen in context.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister admit that the Government's record on energy efficiency and insulation during the past decade has greatly worsened and is most unsatisfactory, particularly compared with the rest of western Europe? Does he accept that if we reach those standards we would not need to build any more nuclear power stations?

Mr. Spicer: Speaking from memory, we are above the European Community average for energy conservation and efficency.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): Five per cent. above.

Mr. Spicer: My right hon. Friend says that we are 5 per cent. above the EC average. If one takes CO2 emissions as a proportion of electricity generated, our position has greatly improved.

North Sea Wells

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many exploration and appraisal wells have been drilled in the North sea since drilling began.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): Up to the end of April 1989 a total of 2,114 exploration and appraisal wells had been started on the United Kingdom continental shelf since drilling began in December 1964.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the reserves are much higher than orginally envisaged? does he accept that it is an encouraging sign that applicants are now finding viable much smaller fields than the large fields that were orginally viable?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, I can confirm that the past two years have been extremely good years in the North sea with record exploration, good finds and record investment. It is now clear that we shall be a substantial producer of oil and gas for at least the next 25 years.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Secretary of State has accepted that there may be some danger to safety in the North sea if the geomagnetic survey comes to an end and as his Department has accepted that there are circumstances in which he may be prepared to pay a contribution for the continuation of that programme, will he consult the Secretary of State for Education and Science and ensure that funding continues beyond 15 July so that a package of finance can be put together?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, Sir. I will.

Mr. Hannam: Do not those welcome figures show that the tax regime following the Budget is about right? Can my right hon. Friend tell us how developments are proceeding in the North sea and whether our self-sufficiency will extend into the years ahead?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, Sir. In the last year, not only was there a great deal of activity and exploration, but 24 developments, representing an investment of more than £32 billion, were approved by my Department. It is now clear that our reserves will last considerably longer than anyone originally dreamt. That is no reason why we should not take action to find more and to conserve what we have, but the picture is promising.

Mr. Doran: The Secretary of State is rightly encouraged by the rate of development in the North sea, but he will be aware that the rate of discovery is still much less than the rate of production. Can he give us a precise date for the latest estimates of our self-sufficiency, and what measures has he taken to extend the period of self-suficiency?

Mr. Parkinson: I cannot give those exact figures. It is clear that 1988 was not a good year for discovery as compared with exploration, but this year is much better. There have been seven discoveries in the first three and a half months of the year, and it is clear that the rate of production in the future will tail off much more gently than we had expected.

West Burton Power Station

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive firm proposals for starting construction of the proposed West Burton 1800 MW coal-fired power station.

Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend is still waiting for Nottinghamshire county council, Bassetlaw district council and the CEGB to sign agreements. When he receives them he will decide whether to give his consent to construct the station. The timing of construction is a matter for the applicant.

Mr. Haynes: The Secretary of State usually answers this question, but today he has put up the junior Minister. What does he think he is playing at? Before the election, he said that we would have a station at West Burton. Look at him laughing and grinning all over his face! He has used the excuse of planning problems and problems with the CEGB, but those problems are now out of the way. Why does not the Minister pull his socks up and let us have this station? It would be in the interests of jobs and power for Nottinghamshire and the nation. The Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself for laughing when I am putting this serious problem to him. Come off it! He should get up at the Dispatch Box and tell us that we are going to have that power station.

Mr. Spicer: Somewhere in there was a question trying to get out. I shall answer it in these terms. Tripartite agreement between the local authorities and the CEGB on the main conditions has been reached, although several minor issues on highway matters are outstanding. I believe that the signed agreements will be with us shortly, after which my right hon. Friend will be able to decide whether to hold a public inquiry.

Mr. Andy Stewart: I am delighted by my hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). We and everyone else in Nottinghamshire know that the 25 per cent. reduction in real terms in the cost of raw materials to the CEGB was due to the increase in productivity by the Nottinghamshire miners, who can guarantee a secure supply to the new power station. Will my hon. Friend bring that fact to the attention of the authorities who will decide when the station is built?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is right. The nation and the electricity consumer owe a great deal to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, for whom I think he was speaking. The Opposition would do well to think about that occasionally. The area boards, which will be a key determinant in the future of West Burton, believe that it is a good site for a coal-fired power station. Their precise needs will be determined by their obligation to supply and by the estimates that they make of future demand for electricity.

Mr. Wallace: If a coal-fired station is built at West Burton, can the Minister estimate what percentage of the coal burn will be imported coal? Does he propose to introduce regulations covering the sulphur content of imported coal, bearing in mind the low sulphur content of much of the coal mined in the United Kingdom, not least in Scotland?

Mr. Spicer: There are strict regulations covering SO2 emissions, and the intention is that SO2 will be reduced by


60 per cent. by the year 2,003. We have always made it clear that there are no import controls at present and that there will be none in the future. Unlike many Opposition Members, we are completely confident that the core business of the British coal industry will be the production of electricity. We believe that that is evidenced by the vast amounts of money that we have been putting into the industry and the response that we are getting from the work force.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend agree that a station of that size will be commissioned only if the generator has a long-term contract to supply? Does he further agree that the reverse side of that is that the generator will need a long-term contract for the supply of the basic fuel? I suggest that such long-term security will come about only if the coal used is coal produced by British Coal, and that may involve the Government knocking a few heads together. May I ask my hon. Friend, therefore, whether he feels in an aggressive mood?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes some extremely good points about the reasons why a British electricity industry would wish to buy from an indigenous supplier such as British Coal, especially as the industry has very good coal at its disposal. My hon. Friend asked me to join the negotiations that are taking place between British Coal and the electricity industry. I have to say, on behalf of the Government, that we wish those negotiations to be conducted freely between the two sides. That is why it was quite wrong for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to run round town this morning saying that we have predetermined plans for British Coal.

Mr. Blair: Then perhaps the Minister will answer the question that he failed to answer this morning. Is it the case that, as matters stand at present, the electricity industry will order 15 million tonnes less from British Coal next year, despite being offered it at market prices? Even if the Minister feels no concern about the effect that that will have on jobs, on the balance of payments, on the midlands economy and on the future of electricity supply in his capacity as an Energy Minister, does he not feel even a twinge of conscience, as a member of the Conservative party, towards those UDM members whose support the Government was happy to exploit during the miners' dispute and whose reward may now be a P45?

Mr. Spicer: It is a matter of great interest to the Government that the hon. Gentleman should suddenly discover the UDM. It is a little rich for Labour Members suddenly to be defending the UDM. I have already made it quite clear to the House—I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would join me in this—that the nation owes a great deal to the UDM, and we do not need to be taught that lesson by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our responsibilities for the future of energy in Britain. We have an interest in this matter, and we take a balanced view of it. We have an interest in ensuring that electricity prices are as low as possible—and that involves fuel prices—and at the same time in ensuring that we have a thriving indigenous coal industry. That is why we have spent £2 million every working day on developing our coal industry.

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about his proposals for employees in the electricity industry being offered a stake in their own companies.

Mr. Parkinson: There will be attractive terms to ensure that employees can acquire shares in the successor companies. Decisions on the details of the offers that will be made to employees will be taken nearer the time of the sales.

Mr. Thurnham: When allocating shares, will my right hon. Friend give every encouragement to employees to take up their full individual entitlement, to spread the benefits of share ownership as widely as possible?

Mr. Parkinson: We think that it is very important for individual employees of the industry to have their own shareholding. We therefore intend to put together a package of discounts and encouragements which we hope will encourage more than 90 per cent. of employees to take up their shares, as has happened with previous privatisations.

Mr. Foulkes: However welcome the proposal may be in principle, will this not remain merely a cosmetic exercise unless the Secretary of State is willing to ensure that the majority of shares go to people who have staked their lives in the electricity industry, rather than to big business, which happens to have the capital to put into shares but which has no real long-term interest in the industry?

Mr. Parkinson: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that the rest of the nation should make a present of something up to £10 billion to the 131,000 people who work in the industry. It is a national asset. The employees receive a proper wage and salary, but we want them to have the chance to have a stake in the industry and we intend to ensure that they do.

Mr. Mans: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply on this matter. Has he given any thought to setting up employee share ownership plans trusts—ESOPS trusts—as part of the offer for sale of the companies as a way of ensuring that employee share ownership is ongoing?

Mr. Parkinson: That is a possibility that has been put to us. I have not taken a final decision nor have the companies, but we are slightly dubious about collective ownership in this case. We believe that, initially, the employees should become individual shareholders in their own right.

Mr. Pike: Rather than just giving the employees a stake in the industry if it must be privatised, why does the right hon. Gentleman not take the opportunity, while the Bill goes through the House, to enable them to have a say in the industry by making provisions for employee participation at board level on the various boards? The right hon. Gentleman could do that and he could ensure that the employees are allowed to elect their own representatives on to those boards.

Mr. Parkinson: We do not believe that trade union representation is necessarily the same as representation by the labour force. We do not believe in the institutionalised representation of the work force on the board. We want


individual members of the work force to have shareholdings, to go to the AGM and to use their votes to vote on to the board directors of their choice.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of emissions of Co2 by the Central Electricity Generating Board's power stations in 1970 and 1987; and what was the amount of electricity supplied in the same years.

Mr. Michael Spicer: CEGB emissions of carbon dioxide in 1970 and 1987 were 184 million tonnes and 182 million tonnes respectively. Over the same period electricity supplies by the CEGB rose by 23 per cent.; The amount of Co2 emitted by the CEGB per unit of electricity production has fallen over the period by 20 per cent.

Mr. Amess: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the CEGB has no plans to increase emissions of carbon dioxide by 25 per cent., as rumoured in some quarters?

Mr. Spicer: Yes, Sir. I can give that assurance. A number of predictions have been made about future Co2 emissions, but they depend upon what assumptions are made about demand or the future make-up of electricity generation. For instance, a continuing switch from coal to gas or an increase in nuclear power will reduce Co2 levels considerably.

Mr. Anderson: Surely the best way of reducing Co2 is by conservation, by alternative energy means and by ensuring that we can green our cities and plant trees on derelict land to fix the Co22 in the biomass.

Mr. Spicer: As we discussed earlier, undoubtedly one way to reduce CO2 emissions is to engage in conservation measures. We certainly intend that that should be the case. Our main policy to combat CO2 emissions however, has been to encourage a variety of non-CO2 emitting fuels, such as nuclear and renewables and reduced CO2 emitting fuels such as gas and clean coal technologies. Since the Opposition oppose most of those measures, especially nuclear power, it is fair to ask them what they propose to do about it.

Mr. Rost: In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, can my hon. Friend confirm the rumour that the Government are, after all, to introduce amendments in the other place to the Electricity Bill to strengthen the obligations to improve energy efficiency and to provide incentives for the production of electricity combined with the marketing of the heat?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend has been pressing the case for combined heat and power for many years and with increasing effect. He will know that a number of measures associated with the Bill greatly improve the chances of CHP and will particularly ensure that it has a fair and even playing field in comparison with other forms of electricity. That is the only assurance—it is a good one—that I can give my hon. Friend about the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Morgan: Some 10 days ago a seminar was held at 10 Downing street on the greenhouse effect. Can the Minister or the Secretary of State confirm that if the Government chose to use the argument that the only way to hold back the greenhouse effect is to switch to nuclear

power, 24 nuclear power stations would have to be built by the year 2020—something the British planning process could not possibly provide? Do they agree that it is shocking that when the alternative proposal, supported by most scientific and technical opinion—that energy conservation is a far better way to hold back the greenhouse effect—needs to be pressed on the Prime Minister Jimmy Goldsmith, a friendly neighbourhood billionaire, must be called in and asked to use his influence with the Prime Minister, rather than the Secretary of State?

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman answered his own question about the planning constraints involved in the construction of 24 nuclear power stations. We envisage that there will be four new PWRs and that each one, with a capacity of 1·2 GW, will reduce CO2 emissions by about 6 million tonnes per year, or about 3 per cent. of the total emissions. That is pretty good.

Dr. Michael Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that there seems to be a notion about that if a Labour Government come to power, coal will be burnt extensively without any adverse effect on the atmosphere? Will he confirm that 1 million tonnes of coal burnt will produce 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, whether a Conservative or Labour Government are in power, and that chemistry is impartial in terms of politics?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend's logic is impeccable as, I am sure, are his figures. Certainly, the logical implication of the Labour party's policy is that, for the foreseeable future, it intends to base the entirety of our energy on coal technology. That will have a grave impact on CO2, emissions.

Nuclear Power

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department has plans to increase the size of its nuclear power programme.

Mr. Parkinson: No, Sir.

Mr. Evans: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is apparently determined to rely entirely on nuclear power in the future to combat the greenhouse effect, would it not be more realistic to start installing flue scrubbers in coal-fired power stations such as Fiddler's Ferry as an additional weapon in our fight against the greenhouse effect?

Mr. Parkinson: At the end of last week, the Prime Minister repeated the Government's position, which is that we wish to see four PWRs built to replace the Magnox stations that will be phased out between now and the year 2000. The Prime Minister also said—and it is a remark that I have repeatedly made in the House—that she believes that the argument is gradually turning in favour of nuclear power. Therefore, that number may turn out to be the minimum, but the Government's present plans envisage four PWRs being built.

Mr. Morgan: Oh, a minimum?

Mr. Parkinson: I have said that before, too. The hon. Gentleman should listen occasionally. The first orders have been placed for Drax and we are committed to a reduction of 60 per cent. in sulphur dioxide emissions by


the year 2003. That will mean more retrofitting and it is for the CEGB and its successor companies to decide which stations will be retrofitted.

Mr. Jack: In view of my right hon. Friend's previous and excellent answer, what specific measures is the Central Electricity Generating Board taking to ensure that the existing, advanced gas-cooled reactors give the maximum output?

Mr. Parkinson: A Labour Government originally ordered them and we have presided over their development. Therefore, it should be encouraging to all hon. Members to know that at long last the AGRs appear to be working better. Last year was their best year for production. Torness and Heysham B have every possibility of being successful, therefore, good progress is being made.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Has the Department made any real assessment of the cost to the consumer of its programme of nuclear energy? Is the Secretary of State aware that Torness, which came on stream in Scotland on Saturday, led to £2 billion debts for the South of Scotland electricity board which, along with the servicing of that debt, will pass on to the consumer a bill of about £170 per year? Does the Secretary of State accept that nuclear energy is unwelcome to the population, and that Saturday was an example of the great white empress opening a great white elephant?

Mr. Parkinson: I congratulate the hon. Lady on thinking up that well-thought-out remark so spontaneously. We believe that nuclear power has justified its existence in this country on at least three occasions in the past 15 years: during the oil price explosions and during the miners' strike. I did not notice the critics of nuclear power complaining that their lights came on even though the NUM did its best to turn them off. There is a price to be paid for security, and we are prepared to pay it.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most dangerous things we can do when judging the greenhouse effect and its policy implications is to oversimplify the whole matter? If world reductions of carbon dioxide are to be achieved in the amounts that science suggests, we shall need every contribution we can get, not only from energy conservation and efficiency and a reduction of demand for electricity, but from nuclear power, too.

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one suggests that nuclear power is an alternative to conservation or that we should stop conservation. No one suggests that there is only one answer.
Our record on improved energy efficiency is extremely good, so we say exactly what my hon. Friend said. The world cannot afford to turn its back on any means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, because they present a major threat to us all.

Mr. Barron: If the Secretary of State has no plans to increase nuclear power, is he happy that his diversity argument will also be used now about foreign coal? The question that we asked earlier is important. We understand that negotiations are going on for 15 million tonnes of foreign coal. Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department happy that that should take place in the next two months—yes or no?

Mr. Parkinson: I am not in a position to settle the negotiations between the CEGB and British Coal; they are going on now. Opposition Members do not realise that they are being used by proponents of one side of the argument to prevent proper negotiations from taking place. We have given the two sides permission to negotiate freely and we have made it clear that we shall not dragoon them. We have also put the British coal industry into a better position in which to compete than ever before and we believe that, based on its recent performance, it will get most of the business. We do not accept that British Coal can find customers only if they are dragooned into buying from it.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members are talking a load of scientific nonsense and that it is high time that Labour Members learnt from Socialist France that nuclear power is a positive and effective way of generating electricity?

Mr. Parkinson: I cannot see why my hon. Friend felt it necessary to qualify his "nonsense" remark with the adjective "scientific".

Offshore Installations

Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many offshore installations have shut down in the last 12 months; and what was the total loss of production of (a) oil and (b) gas.

Mr. Parkinson: Seventeen million tonnes of oil production has been deferred, not lost, as a result of the Piper Alpha disaster and other accidents in the past year. Apart from Piper Alpha, the operators expect the majority of fields currently out of production to be back on stream by the end of this month and the remainder by September. The loss, or deferment, of gas production was minimal; the total capacity of the North sea and Morecambe hay remained well in excess of demand.

Mr. Doran: That is an appalling record. Does not the Minister think it ironic that the Tern Eider field is being opened almost as we speak, yet these fields are being shut down because of the closure of the Brent pipeline system? Given the serious consequences of these failures of safety —the loss of life and the effect on the economy—does he accept now that safety in the North sea is far too important to be left to the Department of Energy?

Mr. Parkinson: That exciting list of statements led nowhere, but it allowed the hon. Gentleman to run one of his favourite hobby horses at the end, which was interesting. No one could draw his conclusion. Until the day after Piper Alpha, not a single Labour Member had ever asked me a question about North sea safety, and I was never asked about the better performance of Norway, for the simple reason that its record until that time was a great deal worse than ours.
There are lessons to be learnt and we intend to learn them. My inspectors take their jobs extremely seriously.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Health and Safety Executive and Commission have a pretty good record of work generally? That being so, why, after all these incidents, does he resist so strongly extending their powers properly to cover this whole area?

Mr. Parkinson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman remembers that our present arrangements were the direct result of a study by the Burgoyne committee set up by his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). That committee reported to us and recommended the arrangements that we now have. The arrangements were put in place as a result of the study by an independent committee. We have already made it clear that if Lord Cullen of Ashbourne feels that he wishes to make any comments on those arrangements and to express a view about seeing them changed, we shall be happy to consider it.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the accidents in the North sea bring home to consumers the question of interruptible supplies of gas. Will he consider suggesting to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that if we are to retain a horticultural industry the increase in gas prices as a result of the recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission report should be looked at again? Will he have discussions about that matter with the chairman of British Gas?

Mr. Parkinson: As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, my Department has no standing in this matter. It is now a matter between British Gas, the regulator and the Department of Trade and Industry which is responsible for consumer affairs.

Mr. Haynes: Who is responsible?

Mr. Parkinson: Not the hon. Gentleman, thank God. I note what my hon. Friend has said and I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Rees: Will the Secretary of State consider that the Burgoyne report was issued 14 years ago? The Labour Energy Minister at the time decided not to bring energy and oil work within the scope of the Health and Safety Commission. That was a long time ago, and in view of the accidents that have taken place, is the Secretary of State saying that he is completely happy with the arrangement made following Burgoyne? Would it not be better to think again?

Mr. Parkinson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that Burgoyne was 10 years later than he suggests. The arrangements have not been in place since 1971. I think they have been in place since 1981. We have already made it clear that we are not interested in defending the status quo. We are interested in North sea safety. Lord Cullen is looking at the whole background to the Piper Alpha disaster, and if he makes any recommendations we shall take them very seriously indeed.

Nuclear Fusion

Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information is currently available to his Department on low-temperature nuclear fusion.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Different groups of scientists claim to have observed nuclear fusion in simple apparatus at room temperature. Experiments are under way by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and in laboratories and universities worldwide, to reproduce and understand the effects that have been reported.

Mr. Fishburn: Will my hon. Friend consider diverting some of the huge amounts of Government money that are spent on research into high-temperature fusion into low-temperature or cold fusion, on the understanding that although there is no clear result yet, any such result would unlock a source of energy which would be vastly cheaper, safer and more usable for future generations than the present nuclear fusion?

Mr. Spicer: We have yet fully to assess the findings of Professors Pons and Fleischman. However, I understand that early attempts to reproduce any form of nuclear reaction have been disappointing. Some explanations suggest that the two scientists created a chemical rather than a nuclear reaction. Scientists at Harwell have yet to give their conclusions on the matter and until they do it is difficult for me to argue that any extra resources should be diverted to this research project.

Nuclear Power Stations (Decommissioning)

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many nuclear power stations he envisages being decommissioned in the next five years; and what provision is being made for the eventual demolition and disposal of the constituent parts.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Decommissioning of nuclear power stations is an operational matter for the CEGB. The board makes appropriate provision for decommissioning in its annual accounts. This amounted to £568 million at 31 March 1988.

Dr. Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that, inevitably, when power stations are decommissioned there is radioactive waste, and that it is only logical that Conservative Members who support nuclear energy should also support the creation of repositories for nuclear waste? So that new orders can be placed for further power stations, will my hon. Friend ensure that a site for a repository is found quickly, so that it can be built without any undue delay?

Mr. Spicer: Like my hon. Friend, we recognise the need for progress to be made in the development of a repository, but I am sure that he will agree that this must be on the basis of a proper assessment of the safety and environmental factors. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment confirmed on 21 March that the Government have accepted Nirex's recommendations that the repository should be in the form of a mine under the land, and that further investigation should be carried on at Sellafield and Dounreay. This work is expected to take about 18 months to complete and until then, Nirex will not be in a position to submit proposals or to seek the necessary approvals through the normal planning procedures.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Parliamentary Questions

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on how many occasions since his appointment he has answered oral questions in his capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Tony Newton): By the time that I have finished this sentence, two.

Mr. Cohen: Should the Chancellor be abolished as obsolete, or would he prefer more questions to be addressed to him—for example, questions about the appointment of magistrates to enforce the poll tax? will not his JP appointee be making large sums out of the poll tax while clipping the wages and benefits of, and perhaps sending to prison, people who will lose hundreds of thousands of pounds? Is not the best way forward the abolition of both the Chancellor's post and the poll tax?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I would welcome more questions like that one. I would welcome any assistance that the hon. Gentleman cares to give me in fulfilling my duty and my clear purpose in ensuring a fair and balanced administration of justice, and in appointing magistrates, in the areas for which I am responsible.

Mr. Marlow: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is very jealous of his Duchy. Can he explain to the House how it is that the European Community has acquired competence over the quality of water in Blackpool? I should have thought that this was a matter for the people of Blackpool, if they want to secure a decent tourism trade, or, if not, for this House. Could my hon. Friend tell the House how we are to get that competence back?

Mr. Newton: I should perhaps first make it clear that it is not my Duchy but that of Her Majesty the Queen, who is also the Duke of Lancaster. As to the quality of water, I would regard my interest as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as being the same as that of anyone concerned with any other part of the country, which is to ensure a high quality of water. That is the aim of the Government's policies.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Women Employees

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many women are employed by the Church Commissioners.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): There are 139 women on the Church Commissioners' staff.

Mr. Marshall: Is there not scope for women to serve the Church in other ways? Is it not high time that a decision was made over women priests, especially as women are effective preachers and are likely to be even more conscientious than men in their pastoral duties?

Mr. Alison: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's championing of the cause of women in the Church of England ministry. He will know that there are already about 500 women deacons in post in the Church of England, and they do marvellous work. However, the ordination of women measure is unlikely to come before the General Synod until 1992, which will be after the next General Synod is elected in 1990.

Employees

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is (a) the salary of the highest paid official employed by the Church Commissioners. (b) the average per capita salary of employees and (c) the average clerical stipend.

Mr. Alison: The highest salary paid to a full-time officer of the Church Commissioners is currently £50,600, equivalent to Civil Service grade 2. The average salary of the Commissioners' 350 full-time employees is £14,800 and the average stipend of clergy of incumbent status in the Church of England is £8,900 plus largely tax-free benefits in kind averaging around £5,750.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is some inequity? Bearing in mind that the Archbishop of Canterbury is paid £31,870 and the Bishop of Durham £22,745, plus palace—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too much."' Some of my colleagues say, "Too much." Will my right hon. Friend undertake to persuade the Church Commissioners to examine these matters with a view to considering whether they are using their assets equitably and fairly, bearing in mind that the parishes alone will pay the new general secretary of the Synod £50,000? What about setting up advice centres for bishops such as the Bishop of Aston, who has fallen on his nose in a rather tragic way while trying to organise a visit for Archbishop Tutu? Should not the Bishop of Aston have help arid could not the commissioners provide such help?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend must keep these matters in reasonable proportion. It costs about £400 million a year to keep the Church of England running. That sum is largely contributed by people from the parishes, as well as past donors and benefactors. The scale of renumeration for the top administrators, either in the General Synod or the Church Commissioners, is not out of scale given the extent of their responsibilities and the budget that they have to administer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

Commission Meetings

Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Commission last met; and what was discussed.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Commission last met on 6 December when, as I have previously informed the House, the main business was consideration of the estimates of the National Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Audit Office for 1989–90. The House may wish to know that the Commission's next meeting will be held tomorrow.

Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, at the request of the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office is examining the Government's advertising expenditure and the abuse or use of money to further the Government's aims. I now read in the newspapers that the National Audit Office is considering an advertising campaign to polish up its own image. Will


the hon. Gentleman ensure that the National Audit Office campaign is better value for money for the public than the current Government campaign?

Sir Peter Hordern: I cannot comment on the Government's publicity. I understand that the National Audit Office has recently engaged the services of consultants to give advice on its external communications strategy, especially to assist in its recruitment effort in a highly competitive market. If I may say so, it is essential that the National Audit Office should be able to call upon good and qualified staff in the same way that every other major organisations can.

Mr. Tim Smith: Can my hon. Friend confirm that when he or the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee receives any communication from whatever quarter suggesting a matter for inquiry by the National Audit Office, or making allegations of fraud, corruption, bribery or anything else, it is absolutely the standard practice on receipt of such communications for them to be referred directly to the NAO? Does my hon. Friend agree that when The Observer attaches such great importance to allegations sent by a senior privy councillor to the NAO about commissions paid as part of the Tornado contract, it wildly exaggerates the significance of something that the Chairman of the PAC does with every allegation of this sort that he receives?

Sir Peter Hordern: I can only confirm that all serious matters concerned with fraud and allegations of that sort are referred to the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General. I have no knowledge of the specific matters that my hon. Friend has mentioned and they would seem to be more matters for the Chairman of the PAC.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman ask that the issue of articles that appear in The Observer relating to the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee be placed on the agenda of the Commission? Is he aware that The Observer has fabricated articles about the proceedings of our Committee? It has been warned that what it is saying is inaccurate yet it has persisted in printing. Even as late—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a matter for the PAC or the Commission?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Commission, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about the credibility of the Committee.
Even as late as yesterday The Observer published a leader which reiterated mistakes and falsifications that it has published previously.

Sir Peter Hordern: I do not like to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that the Public Accounts Commission deals with very mundane matters such as salaries, terms and conditions of the staff of the National Audit Office, and so on, whereas the exciting things go on in the Public Accounts Committee of which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is Chairman, and who is in a better position to answer such questions than I am.

Mr. Marlow: Subsequent to the second question asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), does my right hon. Friend agree that if by spending money on advertising the sale of privatisation share issues, the

price of those issues is increased by more than the cost of the advertising, that is good marketing? If the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is against marketing, why does he sport that wretched red rose all the time?

Sir Peter Hordern: Such matters are far outside the very mundane considerations with which the Public Accounts Commission has to deal. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House heard my hon. Friend's question and will answer it in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Private Members' Bills

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many private Members' Bills presented (a) as a result of a Member being in the first 20 in the ballot for private Members' Bills and (b) behind the Chair have been enacted in each of the past five Sessions; what were the figures for 1979–80 and 1969–70; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): As the full answer is in the form of a table and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, arrange for it to be published in the Official Report. I would add, however, that in each of the Sessions mentioned in the question the number of private Members' ballot Bills enacted has exceeded the number enacted following introduction under Standing Order No. 58.

Mr. Greenway: Has not the time come to devolve more power to the Back Benchers of this House, bearing in mind that there are about 4,000 laws on the statute book, almost exclusively contributed—if that is the right word—by the Government? In particular, could the private Members' Bill procedure be more open, and would my right hon. Friend support the requirement that those right hon. and hon. Members who object to private Members' Bills stand in their place and say "I object" loud and clear?

Mr. Wakeham: Procedural changes such as my hon. Friend suggests are for the Select Committee on Procedure to examine and it is not for me to make off-the-cuff suggestions at the Dispatch Box. Objection at 2.30 pm on Friday, which is contentious, is objection to a Bill being given a Second Reading without debate. That point is significant and should be borne in mind.

Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more private Members' Bills would stand a chance of progressing on to the statute book if non-contentious, non-party-political Bills having all-party support—such as the Control of Litter (Fines) Bill—were not objected to on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who is a member of a political party that says it cares about the environment?

Mr. Wakeham: Yes. I appreciate my hon. Friend's disappointment, but the procedures are well known to right hon. and hon. Members, many of whom accept that no one should object if a Bill dealing with a contentious matter is opposed at 2·30 pm on a Friday, when its principles have not been debated. However, I feel sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House


would be supportive of any measures to tackle the problems of litter—as are the Government, subject of course to consideration of their practicalities.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the bulk of Bills to which objection is made from a sedentary position every Friday are objected to by a Government Whip who is deployed to do that—usually the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones)? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that it would be better if right hon. and hon. Members were required to rise and declare their identity when objecting to a Bill?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman seeks to squeeze in a party point where there is no party point to be made.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) did so.

Mr. Wakeham: That is right, but I expect the behaviour of right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench to be different from that of right hon. and hon. Members who are disappointed that their own Bills will not pass. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the procedure for objecting to Bills under the present Government is exactly the same as it was under the Labour Government.

The information is as follows:



Ballot Bills
Bills presented under SO 58'


1969–70
5
4


1979–80
5
3


1983–84
10
1


1984–85
11
4


1985–86
11
7


1986–87
6
5


1987–88
9
2


1 Not including Lords Bills taken charge of under SO 58(3)

Private Bill Procedures

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he now has any plans to recommend changes to the private Bill procedures; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: We had a useful debate on this subject on 20 April, during which I said that the views expressed would require detailed and considered reflection. As a result I will be considering with the usual channels and others the scope for an agreed package of procedural changes which might be brought forward in time for the next Session.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that it is recognised on both sides of the House that there is now widespread abuse of private Bill procedure to get through legislation that would otherwise fall foul of planning laws and inquiries at local government level? In some instances, junkets are being arranged. Members of Parliament—on one occasion, many Tory Members—are called upon to vote and then go to a beanfeast. Almost the entire Cabinet went into the Lobby to support the Associated British Ports (No. 2) and North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bills, including the Prime Minister, who turned up in her carpet slippers at 10 o'clock.
Surely when there is that kind of widespread abuse it is high time that things were altered. Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman was preparing to give some consideration to the matter in our debate a few weeks ago, but the Prime Minister coincidentally answered a question about 10 minutes before he rose to speak and he changed his brief?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in certain newspapers, but, having done so, he should have read the correction that appeared a few days later.
I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the private Bill procedure. I know that he popped in For only a few minutes on the occasion that he mentioned, and therefore did not give the matter his usual careful attention. Any private Bill would fail if it sought to give additional powers to the Government, because it would no longer be a private Bill; a private Bill that seeks to give additional powers to a commercial undertaking is a matter for the House to decide. The Government see no case for opposing such a Bill unless it conflicts with Government policy, which does not apply to the Bills referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the case of a private Bill to be introduced reasonably soon, there is considerable disquiet at the possibility of compulsory purchase procedures being used for the purchase of more land than the proposers strictly need? There is a danger of that land being sold on at a profit, when any profit rightly belongs to those whose land has been compulsorily expropriated. When he considers private Bill procedures, will my right hon. Friend take that carefully into account?

Mr. Wakeham: I take my hon. Friend's point, but the Bill that he has in mind will probably be debated at length and he will no doubt make his point then.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Leader of the House accept that the debate to which he referred revealed widespread agreement on both sides of the House about three matters: first, that a private Bill's preamble must be approved; secondly, that it must not raise issues relating to public policy and purpose; and, thirdly, that preliminary proceedings of an appropriate kind should be completed before the Bill is presented?
Is there no possibility of such criteria being incorporated in the Standing Orders for private business? Would that not have the advantage of avoiding future legislation on the matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider looking at the Standing Orders with a view to implementing what I consider to be a widespread view on both sides of the House?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with part, but not all, of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have already said that. I will consider those matters. I agree that there have been instances of promoters trying it on, but that is not to say that I think that the private Bill procedure should never deal with planning matters. When statutory changes are to be made, it seems to me sensible that some planning matters associated with them should be dealt with at the same time.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the private Bill procedure is more democratic than


any planning inquiry? Does he consider it significant that Opposition Members wish to give up powers and cede influence to planning inspectors?

Mr. Wakeham: I would not like to draw a comparison, but those who say that the private Bill procedure is necessarily less fair than a planning inquiry are selling the private Bill procedure short. I believe that by and large it does a very good job.

Mr. Foot: Since it seems to be part of the right hon. Gentleman's original complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) turned up a little late on one of these occasions, could he not arrange that we would never start private Members' business without my hon. Friend being given the chance to be here to assist in the proceedings?

Mr. Wakeham: That is one of the most constructive suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman has made in the House for a long time.

Mrs. Clwyd: Surely the Lord President agrees that in the case of the Felixstowe dock Bill the whole thing was a fix. The promoters of the Bill were very large contributors to the Tory party. The Member of Parliament for the area

was then the chairman of the Tory party. The champagne reception at the end was quite clearly organised as a treat for those who supported the Bill. Surely the Lord President agrees that our Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure said that there was widespread abuse of the system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out. Apart from any other consideration, objectors to Bills are at a grave disadvantage compared with the promoters. Furthermore, the taxpayer is losing vast sums of money. The promoters are being charged only a very small amount of money for bringing their Bills before the House instead of the £10,000 that each promoter should be paying, as recommended by the Committee.

Mr. Wakeham: To take the hon. Lady's last point, which is the only point on which I agree with her, the charges need to be looked at. That is one of the recommendations in the Select Committee's report. I reject entirely her other suggestion. One of the reasons for the Select Committee's report was that it was inconvenient for certain hon. Members to serve on Private Bill Committees. That presented us with a problem. I think that the hon. Lady knows about the point to which I refer.

Rose Theatre, Southwark

Mr. Simon Hughes: (by private notice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the Rose theatre.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Archaeological work on the site of the Rose theatre has been in progress for some five months. This work has been financed by the developers, Imry Merchant Developers plc, under guidance from English Heritage and the Museum of London. It has become clear in the light of the most recent discoveries that the remains are of greater importance than was previously thought.
As a result, the developers and their architect have been working urgently on possible ways of ensuring that the excavated remains are properly preserved and displayed to the public. I invited them to a discussion this morning, together with English Heritage, which has advised us throughout.
I am very glad to tell the House that Imry has agreed to delay work on the theatre site for up to one month. This is to enable it and its architect to work with English Heritage and with us on the various options. The roof will go back over the site immediately so that the excavated remains are fully protected while these discussions continue.
English Heritage, assisted by the Government, will be contributing financially to the cost of the delay.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for and welcome the Secretary of State's statement. However, I should like to ask him about additional matters that still give cause for concern.
Is the Secretary of State in a position now to schedule the site, as he has been asked to do? Has he insisted that when the developers redesign the building they should avoid pile driving on the site, through the theatre itself, so that the theatre may be preserved intact? Has he agreed with the developers that from the time the building is redesigned and built there will be public access to the site of the Rose theatre so that people will continue to be able to see it?
As of this moment, the concerns are the guarding of the site, the activity on the immediately neighbouring site—which, I ask the Secretary of State to accept, is literally within inches of the edge of the Rose theatre—and the belief that the redesigned building must be agreeable not just to English Heritage but to the archaeologists of the Museum of London. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could give those assurances.
This morning, the people and the developers reached an agreement. I hope that the people, the developers and the Government will again be able in a month's time to reach an agreement that will preserve the Rose theatre intact for all to see.

Mr. Ridley: It would be inappropriate to take the question of scheduling any further as it is a matter for English Heritage. However, in the words that the hon. Gentleman used in his Adjournment debate:
A breathing space is needed for.….the planners in Southwark and English Heritage"—[Official Report, 9 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 838.]

That is exactly what we have provided. It would be inappropriate not to allow a period during which, we hope, a satisfactory result can be achieved.
The breathing space also applies to the hon. Gentleman's two other points about pile driving and public access to the theatre. Obviously, those will be vital matters in the pending discussions, although I cannot forecast any decisions. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any assurances about the outcome of the discussions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, we all hope that not only will the theatre be preserved—there was never any question about its preservation—but that it will be made permanently available to the public I cannot forecast whether that emerges from the time that the Government have bought to allow the options to be considered, although I hope that it will be the case.

Sir Bernard Braine: Although my right hon. Friend's intervention is to be warmly welcomed, is he aware that all who care for our English heritage have been gravely disturbed by what has happened in the case of the Rose theatre? Does he agree that a month is not much time in which to reach a satisfactory conclusion? During that time, will he bend his mind to devising some effective and lawful way of ensuring that when such ruins are uncovered during development work they can be properly preserved rather than hidden beneath a mountain of earth and concrete?

Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend is a little hard on the existing arrangements. During the past year, developers in various parts of the country have spent £14 million on facilitating archaeological investigations and the recording of what has been found. The short period that has been bought will not only save money but will concentrate minds on finding the best solution—although I cannot forecast what it may be—as quickly as possible. I am sure that it is possible for all that it is necessary to do to be clone within that time.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Although I welcome the one month allowed for a solution to be found, does the Secretary of State recognise that what he has told the House today does not constitute a solution but is merely a buying of time? The Under-Secretary said last week that the Government's policy on conservation was to bulldoze the site and cover it with hardcore and sand, which would preserve the site for future generations. I trust that that is no longer the Government's policy and that what they now mean by "conservation" is very different.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that people throughout the country find that the market forces of building yet another office block on the site to be wholly at odds with the preservation of a unique part of our theatrical culture, and that the two are incompatible? Will he visit the site in the company of myself and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) so that he may see it and feel its historical importance? Is he aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House will say clearly to him that, although the delay of one month is welcome, the country expects and demands of the Government that the site be preserved, not for one month but for future generations?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under some misconceptions. The backfilling was never intended


to commit the site to below the basement; it was intended as a means of preserving it while plant and other necessary machinery moved across it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, because of the one-month delay, backfilling will not commence. I believe that there is dispute about it, but many archaeologists believe that the best way to preserve the site for the short and temporary period of construction is to immerse the remains in sand, which will be removed later.
The hon. Gentleman is not right to ascribe the situation to market forces. It might well be that the great prosperity that the Government have brought about has caused far more development and, therefore, far more exposure of sites; but that is not a charge to lay against economic success. The developers have behaved with impeccable propriety. They have delayed a long time already and are prepared to delay further—at great expense to themselves. They have co-operated entirely with the archaeologists and with my suggestion this morning.
I shall certainly visit the site, but, if I may, I shall choose my time and my company.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the buying of time is extremely important and should be warmly and unreservedly welcomed by everyone? Will he acknowledge the significant part that has been played behind the scenes by our hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden)? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this important ruin stands a much better chance of being well protected for posterity if it is sheltered and shielded by the umbrella of a strong building and is not exposed to the elements, as is suggested by some thoughtless people?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) has played in this matter, and I am grateful to him. I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) says about the fragility of the remains and the need to protect them from rain, frost and snow. I am certain that the best answer is to have a solid roof over them for their preservation.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I welcome the breathing space. What options will be considered during this time?

Mr. Ridley: That is not entirely a matter for me. It is a question for the developers and their architect. They must try different designs and different ways of treating the finished product, so to speak, so that access, marketing and presentation of the ruins can be well arranged, and work in conjuction with English Heritage, which will give the architectural advice they need. What the result of that will be, and whether it can be 100 per cent. successful, I do not know, but it may well cost more money than the present scheme. In that case, I suspect that the public may like to consider whether they want to contribute so that the scheme can be altered in such a way as to enable the site to be preserved.
I should make it clear that the Government's commitment finishes with this statement.

Mr. Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my interest as-a-member of The Theatres Trust. I associate myself with the representations that he

has received. I am sure that we all want to express our appreciation for the breathing space. The work done by my right hon. Friend, his ministerial colleagues, the Minister for the Arts and hon. Members on both sides of the House has been constructive and helped to point the way ahead. Finding an answer to an urgent national problem to preserve our heritage is a challenge to public and private sources.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I strongly agree with what he has said. There is an opportunity here. The move was necessary because greater knowledge of the site has been obtained literally in the past two or three days. Recent discoveries make the site more important than was previously thought. It is for that special reason that, on this one occasion, it seems right that the Government should finance the delay so that the forces that are determined to preserve the site have an opportunity to do so.

Mr. John Fraser: Let us hope that the Secretary of State is not like Oscar Wilde, who believed that where archaeology begins art ends. The right hon. Gentleman's remark that his Department will not be involved in any further financial commitment suggests that he knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Mr. Ridley: I claim dissimilarity from Oscar Wilde in more than one respect. My statement pledges Government money for the delay which I have announced, but it goes no further than that.

Mr. Robert Banks: The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that over the centuries the rich history of Southwark has been lost largely because of property development and changes in the pattern of society, but latterly especially by the policies of Southwark council which have almost obliterated the history of that area, not least by its intransigent reaction to the application to build a replica Globe theatre? Is it not an important discovery, and will my right hon. Friend give earnest consideration to classifying the remains of the Rose theatre as a national monument?

Mr. Ridley: The rich history of Southwark has been found rather than lost by the developers there at present. It is not right to condemn Southwark council, because I believe and hope that it will co-operate, as it will be asked, in the month's "window" that we now have to find a solution. I am sure that Southwark council will do that. The time has not yet come to consider the status of the monument or what might be done to preserve it. We must allow a scheme to be found first.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Is the Secretary of State aware that his first answer this afternoon was the best statement I have ever heard him make in the House? [Interruption.] Well, it was a bit better than most of his statements. However, the right hon. Gentleman cannot now decide that the Government have no responsibility for the site. Surely, if the site is part of our English heritage, which obviously it is, the Secretary of State as an artist—and a very fine artist in painting—must recognise that we have to preserve in every possible way the arts of the nation. Therefore, the preservation of a fine, original theatre-is vital in the interests of the cultural development of the nation for our children. I ask the right hon.


Gentleman to reconsider his reply about the Government's role in preserving the site and the financial aid that they must give in order to do that.

Mr. Ridley: If today's statement was the best statement the hon. Gentleman has heard me make, he cannot have been here very much. I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman is given an oportunity to subscribe to any fund which might be set up for this purpose.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: We are talking about the theatre as if it were a building, and it is not; we are talking about the site as if it were ruins, and it is not—it is footings. Is not the life of the theatre composed of actors? Is not the living theatre more important? If every time the footings of some building that experts tell us was a theatre, a brothel or anything else had to be preserved, London would still be composed of Roman ruins. Are we not concerned with the living and the living theatre? If we have £10 million or £20 million to spend, let us spend it on the living theatre and not on the footings of something that looks like a disused mine.

Mr. Ridley: This is not art, but archaeology, which is a different but equally important science. If we were to deny archaeology, we would deny Stonehenge. It is not a living theatre, but at least it is a monument which my hon. Friend would respect, although it is even older than the Rose theatre.

Mr. Clive Soley: The House will welcome the Secretary of State's late, reluctant intervention, but it will also be deeply worried that he has said that he no longer intends to be involved in this matter. The House has ways of bringing him before it to ensure that he remains involved.
What other country would be prepared to bury the heritage that we link to Shakespeare's name—a name which is famous throughout the world and throughout time? The only answer that the Secretary of State has is two of sand and one of cement.
If the Secretary of State had followed the spirit of the 1987 report of the Select Committee on the Environment, he would not have been forced to intervene as a result of the all-night activity of actors, the constituency Member for Parliament and members of the parliamentary Labour party; he would have initiated the action himself. Will he do so in future?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that it was only in the past few days that English Heritage advised that the quality of these remains was far greater than it originally thought. That has changed the position. It is right to respond to my advisers at English Heritage on a matter of this sort. I did not say that the Department would not be involved. The Under-Secretary of State and I will certainly remain involved. I said that the statement did not go beyond the financial commitment to the delay. That is all.
I would never take on the hon. Gentleman as a builder's labourer. If he did one of cement and two of sand, he would be wasting cement on an unprecedented scale.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Today is for private Members' motions, and we must move on.

Kurdish Refugees

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a matter which is urgent, specific and important and which should have precedence over the Orders of the Day, namely,
the arrival yesterday at Heathrow airport of three planes containing Kurdish refugees fleeing from Turkey, and the Government's response.
Between 8 million and 10 million Kurds in Turkey are not, effectively, officially recognised. They live in a war zone. The Kurds who arrived yesterday are asking for asylum on the ground of increasing personal and political persecution which has taken place since the military coup in 1980. Since August 1984, the Turkish security services have engaged in counter-insurgency activities against the Kurdish Workers' party. In addition, vast numbers of Kurds are threatened by deforestation, damming and flooding as part of a programme against them by the Government.
The refugees who arrived yesterday, together with hundreds who have arrived in the past 10 days, have all been directed by the Home Office to the London borough of Hackney and to one address in Kingsland road. It is a bizarre operation about which the chief executive has written to Sir Clive Whitmore, permanent under-secretary at the Home Office.
The need for an urgent debate is fivefold. First, we want to discuss how the Government intend to handle and expedite the applications for political asylum.
Secondly, we want to know why a major international crisis is being directed by the Home Office on to one borough and what resources it intends to provide local churches, community groups, the Kurdish Workers Association and Hackevi to deal with this major emergency. The council could be bankrupted within months in trying to deal with the impending homeless crisis.
Thirdly, the leaders of refugee groups have told me that the Home Office voluntary service unit is being unhelpful. They believe that Ministers are using the crisis as a prelude to introducing visa controls for people from Turkey.
Fourthly, we need to discuss the absurdity of allowing Turkey into the European Economic Community while thousands are fleeing the country for want of democracy. Ozal and Evren need to be told what democracy is about.
Fifthly, we need a wider discussion in the House on the Kurds, including the chemical warfare and genocide in Iraq, which is being turned on them by the hated dictator Saddam Hussein.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will allow this application.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the arrival yesterday at Heathrow airport of three planes containing Kurdish refugees fleeing from Turkey, and the Government's response.
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but, as he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is


to decide whether it should be given precedence over the business already set down for this evening or tomorrow. I regret that the matter which he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not challenge your ruling, but I am sure that you will be aware that many of the Kurdish asylum seekers have suffered the most appalling repression at the hands of the Turkish forces and have suffered massacres of their families. They are justifiably seeking asylum. Many of them live in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), as well as in mine.
Is there some way in which, later this week or next week, we can obtain an answer from the Government about the support that they are prepared to give, as humanitarian aid, to people who have suffered the most appalling privations and who are looking for help from the people of this country? Some help has already been offered to them in their present plight by ordinary people in Hackney and Islington.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about those unfortunate people. There are opportunities to raise such matters during the parliamentary week—perhaps at Prime Minister's Question Time tomorrow—and there is always the opportunity, if the hon. Gentleman can take it, of an Adjournment debate. I do not underestimate the importance of the matter, but I have already ruled on the application made under Standing Order No. 20.

The Observer Newspaper

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noted the leading story in The Observer yesterday alleging that seven Members of this House had signed an early-day motion attacking The Observer for publishing fabricated stories on British arms deals at the behest of the newspaper's proprietor.
As custodian Of the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, will you confirm that that leader in The Observer is a falsification and that it grossly misrepresents the proceedings of Parliament? Will you confirm that early-day motion 801, which I tabled, accuses The Observer of falsely claiming that an inquiry into bribes for Tornado had been set up by the National Audit Office? It also accuses The Observer of inventing a sequence of events leading to that so-called inquiry. It also accuses The Observer of deliberately misleading its readers by suggesting that a Privy Councillor had submitted evidence to the National Audit Office backing the newspaper's allegations. That is a blatant untruth. An anonymous letter was received by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and was passed on to the National Audit Office. That anonymous letter made no substantiated allegations and included no evidence.
Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that, contrary to what the leading article says about the failure of any signatory to consult the Public Accounts Committee or the National Audit Office, several of the signatories consulted the Chairman of the Committee and the National Audit Office during a deliberative session of the Committee on Wednesday 22 April? On that occasion we were told that an inquiry had already been set up, going back as far as Sir Gordon Downey's time as Comptroller and Auditor General and before The Observer had made the allegations. That inquiry was completely unaffected by the allegations in The Observer.
I stand by early-day motion 801. It is the truth, and The Observer persists in telling lies.

Mr. Speaker: I am not privy to what goes on in the Public Accounts Committee, but I confirm that early-day motion 801 was in order or it would not have been on the Order Paper.

Transport

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move,
That this House congratulates the Government on the increase in spending on roads by 57 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and on rail by over 75 per cent. over the last five years; notes the substantial and continuing pressure by the public for further measures to be taken up to and after 1992 to relieve road congestion; further notes that additional significant increases in public spending of 25 per cent. on roads and nearly 50 per cent. on rail are planned up to 1992; applauds the encouragement being given to the private sector to develop a role in our roads programme; believes that the privatization of British Rail would improve the service for the customer in the years beyond 1992; notes the improvement in the quality and quantity of bus services following de-regulation, and the privatisation of the National Bus Company; believes that there is a need to take further in the years up to 1992 and beyond the steps already taken by the Secretary of State for Transport in liberalising air fares and routes in the interests of the travelling public; congratulates the Secretary of State for Transport on the steps he personally has taken to promote public discussion of radical as well as conventional solutions to these problems; and urges the Government to continue its efforts to identify ways of mitigating and resolving these challenges in the years up to 1992 and beyond, the cost of which can now be supported because of the success of this Government's economic policies.
I must observe in passing that millions of our fellow citizens have been subjected to appalling inconvenience and disruption by today's strike action. Although that is not the subject of the debate, it is perhaps appropriate that it should be taking place today. In moving the motion, I am supported by a number of my hon. Friends who hope to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and who will develop a number of themes that my motion seeks to highlight.
I am grateful, too, for the opportunity that winning this place in the ballot provides to draw attention to a matter of great concern to my constituents. The motion seeks to draw attention to the Government's many successes in this important area of activity since 1979, in terms of deregulation, privatisation, investment and the removal of red tape. That record is there for everyone to see but in addition, my motion draws attention to the formidable challenges that we face, on which our constituents expect decisive action and a clear policy.
The solutions remain primarily with the public sector. The excellent state of our public finances, as a result of the success of the Government's economic policy, means that the necessary funds do not elude us. We should be clear that, while the Government have, in part, established a reputation for eliminating wasteful, unnecessary and imprudent public expenditure, the converse is equally the case where good schemes require public funding and provision. The Government have been more responsive and supportive with taxpayers' money than any previous Government.
The challenge does not lie—as it has so often under previous Governments—in how to find the money that we require. It lies in the use of the funds that are available to the maximum advantage in meeting our transport infrastructure requirements. Our geographical position on the edge of the EC makes that all the more important in the run-up to 1992, to which my motion draws attention.
I would also underline what I believe to be the personal contribution that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made in identifying ways of resolving the difficulties and moving transport infrastructure issues up

the political agenda. He has given specific encouragement to the private sector to come forward with ideas and proposals. He has promoted an important debate about the future shape of British Rail, and the liberalisation package of late-1987 on air transport and related matters clearly emanated from him. He has done much to focus public attention on the things that need to be done.
Let me deal briefly with the current position of British Rail and the challenges that it faces for the future. It is right to note that under Sir Robert Reid British Rail has made substantial progress in recent years. In the past year, 20,600 million passenger miles have been travelled—the highest figure for 27 years—and £1·7 billion of passenger income has been received by British Rail. At the same time, there has been a 27 per cent. diminution in the support required from the taxpayer to run British Rail. Those are significant figures and accompany the significant investment that has been made in renewing and improving the rail network. No less than £2·5 billion has been spent since 1983 on 30 major investment programmes and many minor ones.
It is precisely because British Rail has made such progress that its return to the private sector can now be discussed as a serious option.

Mr. Peter Snape: Suppose that British Rail had not been so successful in generating internal investment. Would such a lack of success have meant that management was so bad that British Rail would have to be privatised anyway?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman misses the point about privatisation entirely. If a business can stand on its own feet and thrive and flourish in the private sector, it should do so. I am merely pointing out that British Rail fulfils those important criteria. The case for, and objective of, privatisation can only be the extent to which it will assist and enhance British Rail's service to customer and improve its efficiency.
The case for rail has never been stronger. We must respond to rapidly growing passenger demand. British Rail must woo freight off the roads. It is in a unique position to respond to a number of environmental concerns. Above all, it must continue to improve the quality and standard of its service. I believe that British Rail is most likely to achieve those objectives if its long-term future rests in the private sector. I shall not discuss what method of privatisation might be the most appropriate although some of my hon. Friends will wish to refer to that.
Let me mention one local matter of immense concern to my constituents—the future of the midland main line. British Rail, and many hon. Members, have recently received the midland main line strategy study, a document commissioned by a number of the counties affected. It is a positive and helpful document. The approach that British Rail is taking towards the midland main line is a good one. Many improvements are to be made later this year. Last year, I had the opportunity to travel in the cab of a train and to see for myself some of the improvements that need to be made, which are now to be made as a result of representations from a large number of people. The importance of upgrading the line to provide for greater speeds and of straightening out the bends is well known and the more sympathetic timetabling that BR has produced for my constituents' benefit is welcome.
It is essential for the region that British Rail accepts unquivocally the long-term case for electrification. I do not accept the argument that it is too far off to comment. Investment opportunities and inward investment in Nottinghamshire require investors to know that the region will have a first-class service linked to the Channel tunnel and the European rail network in the 21st century. That is why it is so important for British Rail's management to state publicly that it is committed to enhancing and improving the midland main line. On electrification, the issue is not "if" but "when". Anything that the Minister has to say on that will be reviewed and acknowledged with great interest when the Nottinghamshire authorities and my constituents have examined his comments.

Mr. Graham Allen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that many hon. Members sympathise with and support his view about electrification. I hope that we shall sustain the cross-party nature of the campaign, as electrification is vital for our region. Does not the hon. Gentleman feel, however, that a chance was missed in the debate on the King's Cross Railways Bill last week, when a number of hon. Members refused to allow evidence to be taken in Committee, which would have opened up the debate? For example, it would have allowed the very good study to which the hon. Gentleman referred to be considered, along with other items. Does he agree that that was a missed chance?

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He and I have made similar comments publicly in Nottinghamshire. I do not want to take up his comments about King's Cross, because that Bill is not strictly relevant to the debate.
The second subject covered by my motion—air travel —is also of great concern to our constituents. Their concerns are specific and refer to costs and delays. The agreement in Europe, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did so much to promote at the beginning of last year, has made a considerable difference. Fares to major European capitals have been cut, more routes have been opened up and new services made available to the public. There has also been steady progress in bilateral agreements.
Having said that, far more needs to be done. It is not right that some airlines should receive state subsidy while others, such as British Airways, do not. There should be access for competitors on routes and destinations. The travelling public, and not cosy cartels reinforced by Government intervention, should determine the nature and quantity of air services. It is the Government's job to arrange safety and regulation; it is not their job to interfere unnecessarily in the market process.
In particular, we should have three specific measures: all EC air routes should be open to free competition; there should be major controls on Government subsidies to airlines; and there must be clear and precise rules for route licensing.
Our regional airports, too, have started to take much of the strain in terms of delays. There has been a huge increase in traffic—nowhere more so than at East Midlands airport which was the fastest growing regional

airport in the country. Over the weekend, we heard dire and, I hope, alarmist warnings about holiday air traffic. One commentator said that this year it would be
finely balanced between muddling through and total melt-down.
I sincerely hope that that will not be the case this year. I believe that regional airports have a major role to play in helping to solve some of the problems.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely deplorable that an increase in the number of transatlantic flights landing at Manchester—an important regional airport—has been blocked because of the failure to negotiate an international agreement on that?

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his supportive comments on some of the themes of Government policy, which have attempted to liberalise the arrangements and make life a great deal easier for the travelling public by offering them much more choice.
Since buses and coaches have been deregulated the public have seen more services, more operators and tremendous innovation. Minibuses now operate in 400 areas, often where traditional buses cannot penetrate, competition is flourishing in more than 100 areas, but operating costs have been reduced by more than 30 per cent. and tendering for services has saved local authorities £40 million. Have we seen any of the dire effects prophesied by Opposition Members? I am delighted by the presence today of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). Everything that he told the people of Nottingham before the previous election has come true. The service that suffered 50 years of decline and decay, accompanied by mounting subsidies from the taxpayer and diminishing satisfaction to the consumer has been transformed. It now thrives and flourishes, it is competitive and it is responsive to the consumer.

Mr. Snape: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Snape: It was pretty rich, even for the hon. Gentleman, to dismiss the latest report which refers to a drop in bus mileage since deregulation; in fact, the hon. Gentleman did not refer to it at all. He also dismissed the disastrous impact of deregulation on the bus industry in one nonsensical paragraph from a prepared written speech.

Mr. Mitchell: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been since bus deregulation, but I can hardly have dismissed a document that I did not even mention.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: The Labour victor at the by-election at Pontypridd described himself in a recent sitting of the Standing Committee on the Atomic Energy Bill as a late convert to the idea of bus deregulation. It is delightful that some modern members of the Labour party are late converts to that idea, and it is a pity that there are not more of them.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes the point beautifully, but, as always, there are at least two divisions within the Labour party—those who have come into the modern world and those for whom it is still a distant glimmer on the horizon.
The problems associated with roads are apparent to all of us. As hon. Members return to their homes on Thursday evening or Friday morning and as they come up to London on Monday morning, they see for themselves the appalling difficulties and congestion on our major arterial roads. It is interesting to note, en passant, that while President Gorbachev is busy disregarding the queueing system as a mechanism of economic control, we run our roads policy on that basis.
I believe that significant action should be undertaken on three fronts. First, investment in our roads should be substantially increased; secondly, we need greater involvement by the private sector; and thirdly we need a radical approach to the problems of London. Those problems affect not only Londoners, but my constituents, who either visit or seek to do business in the capital city. My hon. Friend the Minister will know better than I where the new roads need to be, but it is clear even to the casual observer that we need another north-south link. We need to widen many of our major motorways, particularly the M1, and the technology exists to do that without disrupting the other six lanes. We need to enhance the inter-urban links. I could not fail to mention the A453 which links Nottingham to the M 1. That is a dreadful and extremely dangerous road which needs to be significantly enhanced.
The increasing size of our motorways might only add to the thrombosis suffered in London. Therefore, we must acknowledge the importance of an outer-ring road. Given the territory that it would go through, that development, by definition, means major tunnelling which also relates to environmental considerations that I strongly support. Tunnelling is far more expensive, but, increasingly, it is a necessity. We must acknowledge that environmentally sensitive schemes for road development are essential. We must also do something about planning delays. It now takes nearly 15 years to build a road, which is far too long. We need to find ways in which to reduce that appalling delay.
It would be remiss of me not to mention a local matter of great concern to one corner of my constituency—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on roads?

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I have more to say on that matter.
The Gedling bypass has been awaited for many years by my constituents. The traffic problems, which are mounting in Gedling, are worse than anywhere else in the county of Nottinghamshire—the county council has acknowledged that. We understand that the county council has other priorities and that it is currently conducting a review to consider what those priorities should be. On behalf of my constituents, I earnestly urge the county council to consider whether the Gedling bypass can now be scheduled in its capital programme. I pay tribute to the Government for their support, as they have considered this scheme to see whether it might be eligible for 50 per cent. transport supplementary grant. It is important to note that the Government regard it as a scheme
with more than local significance".
I hope that my constituents, who have laboured for so long under this intolerable burden, will see some light at the end of the tunnel in due course.
With regard to the role of the private sector, in building roads, some progress has been made on two of the three

pressing problems that it faces. In the past there was no little incentive for the Department of Transport if private sector schemes resulted in the departmental budget being effectively docked by the Treasury, but, recently, significant progress has been made in that regard. The private sector will not use its ingenuity if genuine progress is unlikely to take place, but recent efforts have been made to counter that problem. However, the private sector is still unlikely to come up with an idea and take it to the Department, only to see it go out to tender. I do not pretend that there is an easy solution to that problem because, above all, we must be competitive. Perhaps we could use the concept of intellectual property to see whether there is some way in which to encourage the private sector to use its ingenuity and thus develop new schemes.
The private sector can play a modest role in a number of ways, but I would not wish to overstate that role. My constituents note that the south-east is groaning under the weight of development. They are also aware that new roads are required to relieve the traffic, which is essentially commuter traffic. I do not believe that there is any reason why my constituents should pay for such development and I believe that toll roads could be the answer. Such a solution would bear all the hallmarks of a much more effective regional policy.
Private sector involvement must carry a level of risk or it is merely an exercise in who provides for the debt. The level of risk to some extent dictates the return. The Department must accept, however, that planning and bureaucratic delays, putting in bids and design preparations are part of the cost that the private sector must bear.
There are at least two ways in which the private sector can earn its return—through tolls and by planning gain. I believe that through the latter the private sector could come into its own with interesting ideas and innovative schemes.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is especially appropriate that the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) should have introduced a debate on transport today. My colleagues and I have a great interest in this matter—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I was about to say that they are not here to express it; no doubt they are suffering from the transport problems.
My day started extremely early as I spent an hour on the picket line at the Holloway bus garage in my constituency. I went there because I wanted to talk to the bus drivers and conductors and to find out why they were taking industrial action today. Conservative Members should do the same, and talk to those people, although they may simply disregard my advice. Many of the people involved have given many years' service to London Transport, they have worked as drivers or conductors for many years, they are committed to public transport and they appreciate the value of the service. What they cannot cope with is being expected to give a donation to London Regional Transport year after year when they do not receive wage increases as high as the inflation rate, which they have not received for several years. They are also expected to suffer the growing trend of one-person operated London buses, which leads to a slower service, greater strain for the drivers and, I suspect, greater danger for other road users. They cannot tolerate having one


route after the other continually put up for sale, either through an internal mechanism in London Regional Transport or to an outside contractor. When outside contractors win the tender to use the route, they sometimes employ drivers on incredibly long hours who have already been declared medically unfit by London Regional Transport.
Conservative Members might praise the virtues of the market economy, but when it leads to danger, as it has on the railways, Tubes and buses around the country, they should think again very carefully. The root of London's transport problems is the Government's obsession with reducing, year on year, the subsidy to London Regional Transport. They say that it should be able to make a workaday profit knowing full well that no public transport undertaking anywhere in Europe does that, or is likely to do so. The Government are also obsessed with promoting the use of private cars and road building as a solution to London's transport problems.
If Conservative Members found London a bit crowded today, it was as nothing compared to how crowded it will be if the Department of Transport gets its way on the road assessment studies and other major road building solutions. The House must face up to the fact that we cannot solve this country's transport problems by endlessly building more and more motorways, which attract more cars, create longer traffic jams at each end of the motorways and ruin the places to which the motorways were originally directed. I advise those who think that that is the solution to consider what has already happened in London and other major cities whose hearts have been torn out to make room for car-borne traffic. The communities' characters are destroyed. If we wish to preserve our urban environment and to protect the nicest parts of our countryside, we will not be best served by building major roads and relying on road transport as the basis of the transport industry.
I often travel on the Euston to Birmingham and Manchester line, on which there is a stretch where the railway runs beside the Ml. As I sit in the train travelling in relative comfort at between 70 and 100 mph, I realise that it is a fast and efficient way to travel. As I look out on to the MI, I can see a sea of traffic going north and a sea of traffic going south. In it, I can see the tense expressions of people driving themselves to early coronaries as they tear along the motorway at 80 mph, flashing their lights and blaring their horns at the drivers in front of them as they desperately try to get to Nottingham, or wherever it may be, five minutes earlier. Part of the reason that so many of those people and freight vehicles are travelling on the motorway is simply that British Rail's pricing structure discriminates against rail transport in favour of road transport.

Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how he can see the tense expressions on the faces of the people in their cars beside the railway lines if he is whizzing along in the train at 90 mph?

Mr. Corbyn: That is a clever intervention. Sometimes I see drivers breaking the speed limit and driving at 90 mph because they are trying to keep up with the train. That drives them to an even earlier coronary than they might otherwise have suffered.
I shall return to the substantive point that I was trying to make. Essentially, the Government discriminate against rail and in favour of road transport by continually reducing their subsidy to the railways, which, compared to that in other European countries, is very low. Therefore, the fares are very high. That means that railways are available for those who can afford to travel on them and are increasingly operating as a mass commuter transit system in the south-east or expensive business-class travel elsewhere. They are not seen as a popular form of transport, as they are in France, Italy, Germany and most other European countries.
There is also the increasing pressure on road building, which comes from the Freight Transport Association, which is ably represented in the House by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), many other such organisations and the construction companies, which want the road building contracts. I want a good transport system for this country, and I believe that its achievement will be based on the improvement and development of the railway system rather than on the development of more motorways.
Problems occur in urban areas at the end of motorways. I represent a densely populated urban constituency in north London. It has a low level of car ownership compared to the London average, which is lower than the average for the country. In some parts of the constituency, only 40 per cent. of households have access to cars, which, by national standards, is quite a low rate.
There is a vast volume of through traffic in my constituency which comes through the Holloway road, down Seven Sisters road and through Tottenham from the north. There are continually, enormous traffic jams which pollute the environment and affect the health of many of my constituents.
One might say that the solution to all that would be to build more roads. However, there is zero—I mean zero —support in my constituency for building more urban roads in London to solve the transport problems. For a long time, my constituents have recognised that the solution to London's transport problems lies not in building more roads, but in improving public transport, removing commuter traffic from the roads and persuading people to use the railways and buses.
During 1981–82 when the GLC introduced the Fares Fair structure, and before it was outlawed by the High Court, there was an increase in bus and Tube traffic and a reduction in road traffic and road accidents. With the increase in fares came an increase in commuter traffic, and the old problems returned.
Through their road assessment studies, the Government are quite simply studying a series of road building options throughout London. There is no support of which I know from ordinary Londoners anywhere for this ludicrous idea to go back to the outdated notion of motorway ring roads around London. The east London assessment study, which involves my constituency, will ruin part of Highgate wood and the Archway road area by the building of a grade separated road. According to the Minister for Roads and Traffic, we must not use the word motorway to describe it because it is not one.
Another series of options includes building a toll road along what is now a beautiful stretch of park known as the parkland walk, from Highgate and Finsbury park. It is a two-mile stretch of disused railway which is a delightful piece of open space, particularly for children living on the


housing estates nearby, who have no parks and very little open space in which to play. That is apparently fair game to be made into a toll road so that commuter motorists can speed through and destroy that bit of park.
The opposition to that proposal is strong. A few weeks ago we had a march along the length of that stretch, down to Camley street natural park at King's Cross. Even if the Government were to succeed—I hope that they never do, and I shall do everything to stop them—in building the Archway road or the parkland walk motorway route, or in widening Holloway road to take more traffic, the traffic will merely build up at Highbury corner, St. Paul's road and Balls Pond road through Hackney to give the inexorable pressure of more and more traffic, attracted on to the roads because new roads have been built. That will destroy more and more homes, businesses and what remains of London's open spaces and natural environment to make way for yet more vehicles to travel through London.
I hesitate to use the word crossroads lest that be taken as showing support for road building solutions, but we are at a crossroads of planning for London. The only solution to London's tranport problems is a resolute commitment to improving and increasing the number of staff on public transport so that it is a safer and cheaper to use and that means greater subsidy, which will reduce the number of people travelling by car in and out of central London. It also means reducing the size of the major lorries that use London as a delivery point.
London, like other cities, is grinding to a halt. It is an unpleasant, dirty and extremely polluted environment. I want London and other cities to be the precise opposite. The Government's policies are disappointing because they do not face up to the real needs of the mass of the people. Only 18 per cent. of London commuters' journeys are made by private car. Eighty-two per cent. are made by public transport, but one would think, judging from the amount of money that the Government propose to put into road building solutions in London, that it was the other way round.
A small minority of commuters travel in and out of central London by car, compared with the vast majority who are forced to travel like cattle on their way to market on the Tube or overcrowded buses. That is not good enough, and the people of London are heartily sick of it and long for change. Any politician who underestimates the strength of feeling in London against major road building and in favour of public transport should have a careful look at his majority in the last election and consider what it might be in the next.
I notice that many Conservative Members are not rushing to welcome the Government's plans. On the contrary, they are asking for an end to road building solutions in London because, like me, they realise that they are nonsense.
As the hon. Member for Gedling mentioned it, I shall close by discussing the role of the private sector in road and rail building. The private sector seems to be slipped in all the time—as though somehow or other it will help to solve the country's transport problems. But it is not involved in road or rail building or anything else as an act of charity, despite being presented to us sometimes under that guise. It is involved because it is a business, and ultimately the public will pay more, not less, because of the private sector's involvement. I am appalled at the idea of

having privately built toll roads and privately built railways; presumably, the latter herald the break-up of the railway system.
We have the basis of a good transport infrastructure in this country in the shape of the rail system. It is underfunded and underinvested in and it needs more money. Instead, the Department of Transport seems to favour major road building proposals, to which there is enormous opposition.
This subject is important and it is regrettable that more hon. Members are not here to discuss it. One can only assume that they are stuck in traffic jams. If so, I hope that they will carefully consider solutions to London's problems which do not lie in providing more roads to bring in more traffic. That is not the way forward. The way forward lies in better, cheaper public transport in which there is proper governmental involvement.

Mr. Michael Colvin: It is a great privilege to be called to speak in the debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on at least being here. The Opposition Benches are singularly empty this afternoon. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on his choice of subject. Transport policy after 1992 is a highly relevant topic, bearing in mind the years of distinguished service as a transport Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), who also happens to double as my hon. Friend's father, gave the Government and Parliament. Clearly, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling is a welcome chip off the old block and I sincerely congratulate him on all that he had to say.
Most of my hon. Friend's remarks concentrated on road and rail investment and on the privatisation of British Rail and the National Bus Company. I also welcome what he had to say about the liberalisation of aviation in Europe. I shall concentrate my remarks on the aviation sector, because my hon. Friend covered the other areas so well.
It is safe to say that any debate on civil aviation should take place at the height of the summer when the problems to which I shall refer are evident. The lovely sunny weather that we are enjoying this month does not mean that summer has arrived early. We shall know when it is summer because there will be a rash of strikes and go-slows at continental airports, air traffic controllers will take action and, once more, we shall see the sad sight of holidaymakers stranded at airports.
It is amazing that the British will put up with almost any inconvenience in pursuit of the sun. Britons of all classes have come to regard a holiday abroad as an inalienable right. As a nation, we are used to queueing, we accept some delays, but how would we react if we were told that only a finite number of holidays was available? The Romans rioted and overthrew their emperors when deprived of bread and circuses, so the party in power when departures to Benidorm are curbed may expect a similar fate.
Last summer, we got through the air traffic chaos with a combination of good luck and good management. We may do so again this summer, but I want to look ahead to 1992 and beyond and to consider how we might cope with a possible doubling of the number of passengers using


London's four airports by the year 2005. Do we have the air space and airport capacity to meet this demand without endangering the public, because safety must always be the overriding consideration?
Nationally, there is no particular problem—at least not in theory. There are plenty of underused airports, particularly military ones, and some of our regional airports are crying out for business. But the trend is away from linear routes, as passengers and operators favour the so-called hub and spoke system, in which there are feeder services into major international airports for onward movement of passengers and cargoes overseas. Passengers now prefer frequency to price advantage, so the demand has been for more, rather than larger, aircraft.
This all means that the pressures exerted on London's airports have made the London area quite different from the rest of the country. However, even in the south-east there are enough terminals and runways, and there is sufficient air space. Why, then, is the average delay for aircraft outbound from the United Kingdom 15 minutes, which is exactly twice that in the United States of America? Unfortunately, the answer is that we impose artificial constraints on our capacity to handle these aircraft. For example, we underinvest in air traffic control, so that our air space is underused—it is thought by some—by as much as 40 per cent., and it may even be more. We impose planning restrictions on our airports and bans on night flying. Given the lead times for the construction of new facilities—runways, terminals and air traffic control systems—it could be said that we are already running into a self-imposed problem of undercapacity in the south-east, especially with regard to air space.
There are two possible responses. First, we can treat air transport as a resource of fixed capacity, and control demand through pricing. I reject that option, as, I imagine, would the House. We should favour the alternative: to use investment in technological advances to expand capacity while reducing unit costs.
It was in the light of these problems that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport asked the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to advise him on traffic distribution policy for airports serving the London area and on airport and air space capacity. The motion gives us the opportunity to debate the Civil Aviation Authority's response. I hope that the advice that we give to the Secretary of State will, to use his own words,
be fundamental in helping to fashion civil aviation policies taking us through the 90s and beyond the end of the century.
In its consultative document, CAP 548, the Civil Aviation Authority said that: By the year 2005 the number of passengers at London's four airports will have more than doubled to 123 million from 58 million that there were in 1987. Heathrow will be handling 55 million passengers, Gatwick 30 million and Luton 5 million. Stansted could be handling about 60 per cent. of London's longhaul traffic but only if an additional runway and terminal were to be built. Of course for that we have to come back to Parliament to get permission. Secondly, the CAA says that: Regional airports will increasingly handle the growth in air traffic as Heathrow and Gatwick become saturated. Although we would not disagree with that, none of us would want to see Heathrow and Gatwick saturated. There must be scope for expansion. The CAA also suggested that an extra London runway will be needed by

about the year 2000 and that planning should begin now if it is to be ready when needed. That is a most controversial suggestion, probably the most controversial of all the CAA's recommendations, and it is a pity that so much emphasis has been placed on it.
The CAA also recommends that charter traffic should not be forced away from Gatwick by giving priority to scheduled services. I am delighted to see that recommendation and I hope that the British Airports Authority will take it on board.
Lastly, the CAA says that business and private aircraft should continue to be restricted to Heathrow and Gatwick and that these restrictions should be extended to their use of airways. The authority also concluded that no additional measures would need to be taken now to affect traffic distribution. It says that it is lack of airport capacity by 1995 that will present passengers with problems.
I agree with the Civil Aviation Authority that the interests of airline passengers will best be served if major decisions on traffic distribution are taken by the airlines rather than through intervention by the CAA or the Government. In effect, that means a continuation of the present system, but there are two rules held in reserve by the Secretary of State which could be abandoned. At Heathrow route frequency capping could go. This is the system whereby instructions can be given to reduce the number of flights that airlines operate on a specific route. It is a way of limiting their slots in order to encourage them to invest in larger aircraft. The second reserve rule relates to Gatwick and it is that preference be given to scheduled services over charter services. That rule should also be abandoned.
Several people have suggested that if demand needs to be managed the preferred option would be for restrictions on small aircraft. But they must have somewhere else to go which still enables them and their passengers to interline with the main hub airports.
We need a pricing structure for the use of air space that will encourage airlines to invest in larger aircraft which, of course, make more effective use of available air space and airport capacity. The present weight-related price structure, which favours small and slow aircraft, should be changed to a pricing structure based on movement-related charges which would encourage the use of larger aircraft. We all want to see that.
In the short term, we must look at ways of speeding up the improvements to our air space capacity, particularly in the London traffic management area, which is known as the LTMA. The CAA has already unveiled its plans for the so-called central control functions, the CCF, under which aircraft will fly one-way tunnels in the sky, each aircraft and tunnel safely separated from all the others. That will reduce the controllers' workload and enable them safely to handle 30 per cent. more traffic. Work is now beginning on CCF, but why do we have to wait until 1995 for it to be fully commissioned when the matter is so urgent?
Similarly, the new all-route centre, the NERC project, is only at the conceptual stage. Eventually it will introduce greater use of automation and other new controlling techniques which are already regarded as essential in the United States of America. I refer to such things as four-dimensional navigation, the traffic alert and collision avoidance system, or TCAS, which is already mandatory in the United States, the use of satellite communications, global positioning systems and data-linked air traffic control.
It is to be hoped that these improvements will all be part of the CAA's £600 million investment programme for the next decade. Will it be too little and too late? In view of the high priority that the Government are quite clearly now giving to road and rail transport and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling referred, it would be sad if civil aviation turned out to be the poor relation. Surely these programmes for investment in better air traffic control systems should be speeded up. TCAS alone would increase air space capacity by a further 30 per cent. by enabling the separation and intervals between aircraft to be safely reduced.
It is, of course, quite possible that the United Kingdom could increase its capacity to handle more aircraft movements in the south-east and yet be unable to find slots at European airports for the aircraft to land. Therefore, it is very important that the initiative taken by the Government in setting up flow control management via Eurocontrol should be extended to take in measures designed to increase European capacity overall. Changes in European national systems should then be co-ordinated through Eurocontrol in order to make them completely compatible. Eurocontrol should also be given greater executive power to specify common equipment standards and operating methods and to rationalise the European air traffic control systems.
I was discussing all this only last night with Mr. Jock Lowe, who is general manager, operations control, of British Airways, as we flew back from Washington in Concorde. He was keeping his hand in as a pilot on that occasion. He raised the important matter of manpower and stressed the need for recruitment and training programmes to ensure that we have enough air traffic control officers available to man the improved and expanding systems that we want to see.
There is a greater chance of having these improvements operative sooner if National Air Traffic Services, or NATS, were separated from the Civil Aviation Authority as a plc in its own right. Although the CCF project has been given some priority by the Civil Aviation Authority, it is increasingly evident that the greater handling capacity of CCF will require en-route ATC sectors to be replaced by an entirely new facility which is called LATCC II which is planned to commence operating in 1996 and to provide the foundation for developing and further expanding ATC services into the next century. Why can we not speed up this proposal? We do not even yet know where LATCC II will be situated.
So much for air space. I should now like briefly to comment on airports. Having looked at the figures and assuming that current trends will continue, I see that we will get not only a higher frequency of aircraft movements in future through improved ATC but also larger aircraft. We shall require more terminals rather than more runways in the first instance. Although an additional runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick would be welcome now—by everyone except my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who has just entered the Chamber—

Mr. Toby Jessel: And many others.

Mr. Colvin: —I am not convinced that the case for either is overwhelming. My hon. Friend and I agree on that. It would be a mistake to start the planning process for

either until the evidence in support is overwhelming. I see my hon. Friend nodding, and I am glad that we agree on that.
One measure that we could take immediately is to provide a taxiway at Luton airport, where there is not one, which would improve capacity there. We should also consider moving business aviation and small aircraft away from Heathrow either to Northolt where there is a lot of capacity, or even to a new runway, which could be built on land available for it between the A4 and the M4 north of Heathrow, where it could easily interline with the main hub.
The south-east could run out of terminal capacity by the mid-1990s, which is even before the date at which the CAA identifies the necessity for a new runway. I think that it has got its priorities wrong here. The most obvious solution is s fifth terminal at Heathrow, on the site of the Perry Oaks sludge farm. With the privatisation of the Thames water authority, there will be an opportunity for British Airways to buy that site, which will enable it not only to develop its own unit terminal—it is extraordinary that British Airways, as our most important national airline, does not have one—but to become one of the biggest retailers of fertilisers for roses. That is an application I should like to see go in.
I know that the Government have said that they are not prepared to give a commitment about the fifth terminal at Heathrow, and they they are keeping the matter under review. However, the time has now come for that commitment to be made so that work can start on planning adequate surface access.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that what he has just suggested would be most strongly opposed and hotly resented by hundreds of thousands of people living around Heathrow in the eight or 10 parliamentary constituencies that already have to suffer, every day, 750 or 800 flights, which disturb people's peace and quiet in their gardens and homes?

Mr. Colvin: I accept my hon. Friend's strong feelings on this matter, but he must not be a Luddite about airport development. Other areas would be only too happy to see their local airports expand. Heathrow is uniquely placed to become an important European hub. Aircraft are getting bigger, which means fewer aircraft movements, and are getting quieter. The noise footprint made by aircraft is much less than it used to be. Furthermore, if my hon. Friend took the trouble to question everyone in his constituency, he would find that many are dependent upon the jobs and prosperity offered by Heathrow, and would be reluctant to see that airport reduced in size, rather than expanding as the rest of us would like.
These improvements at Heathrow would enable it to retain its status as a major international hub, bearing in mind that the Charles de Gaulle airport outside Paris is already bigger than Heathrow and Gatwick combined. It will soon have four runways and will be capable of handling 100 million passengers a year, and one will be able to travel straight from there to London in two and a half hours by the high-speed railway link, if we can agree on the route for that. Therefore, it will be a real competitor for transatlantic traffic. To beat the French, the Dutch at Schipol and the Germans at Frankfurt for this European hub business we need to be competitive.
That raises the question of the British Airports Authority. Sir Norman Payne, as chairman of the BAA, is a dynamic and effective leader, and he makes the best use of the structure of British Airports Authority plc that Parliament, in its wisdom, gave him. However, I question whether BAA has the right structure to enable true competition to take place. In the paper that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) and I wrote on the privatisation of British airports, we suggested three separate plcs for the three London airports. I still think that that would have been a better structure. However, we were assured in Committee that there would be no cross-subsidisation and that each airport would act independently and commercially. I wonder whether that is happening and whether there is not some cross-subsidisation. I know that, from a legal point of view, it is probably too late to "demerge" the BAA into its three separate component parts, but I wonder whether there is a case for referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to see what it has to say.
The BAA is not the only company that may be acting against the public interest. As we consider the liberalisation of air fares and routes in Europe in the run-up to 1992, we should perhaps give European politicians a few lessons on how to retire from owning and running airlines and how they might be made profitable if they were sold to their electors. It is good to know that Britain has been in the forefront of denationalisation, and the move to deregulate European civil aviation. In most European countries, one would have difficulty finding three airlines operating international scheduled services. In Britain, at the last count we had over 20, and that excludes those who are providing purely charter services. Britain can and should take the lead in the liberalised European aviation market, and by that I do not just mean the EC.
Our eventual goal should be an open skies policy where any European airline can fly any route it chooses within the boundaries of the continent of Europe. We want to see airlines free to set the fares that their customers are willing to pay, just like any other supplier, and not to have them regulated by Governments. We want to see an end to restrictions on how many EC airlines can fly a particular route, or how many flights or seats an airline may offer, and an end to the many exemptions that apply to the present EC airlines rules. We must get our European house in order pretty quickly and do it in a way that enables us to unite in negotiating future traffic rights with the United States, which is where the great competition will come from.
The United States has always dealt with Europe on a basis of divide and rule and, as a result, the internal domestic air routes of the United States, wherein over half the world's airlines fly, remains barred and shuttered to those very airlines with whom the United States seeks the right to compete in the skies of Europe. This must end, but I fear that unless the rights of United States airlines to operate within Europe are argued from a common standpoint, the United States may continue to operate a successful policy of divide and rule.
Civil aviation in Europe will grow as fast as the economies of those countries, but there is another factor. People need to travel further in business and they want to travel further on holiday than ever before. In the United

States, only one person in 10 has a passport. When the American people suddenly realise that there are other places to see, or they have to travel on business—they will have to come to Europe as it expands following 1992—there will be a great explosion of air travel. I have spoken in an attempt to ensure that Britain is uniquely placed to capitalise upon that explosion, and that London's airports will provide the hub for Europe that we all want to see.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I shall not follow the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who has skilfully made in this debate the speech that he would have made about the second motion on the Order Paper. I intend to concentrate on the points in the speech of the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and in the motion. I welcome the opportunity to debate transport matters, although I do not agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Gedling or with what is in the motion.
We need to do much more for the regional airports—I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling about that. If this nation is to make the fullest possible use of regional airports, we must do two things. First, we must solve the problems of those who live in the regions and who find it unacceptable to travel to London if they wish to fly to the continent, America or elsewhere and of those who have to come into the country via London. Secondly, we must alleviate the problem of the fifth terminal at Heathrow to which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) referred in his intervention. The construction of that terminal could be delayed. The air traffic problem in the London area could be considerably alleviated if we were to use regional airports to their maximum potential. Surely there is great growth potential for regional airports.
The arguments that I am advancing apply to regional airports generally but I shall refer specifically to Manchester International airport, which is local-authority owned, controlled and developed. Massive investment is still taking place to ensure that the airport remains a major international gateway for the future. At the beginning of May the new terminal A was opened for domestic traffic. That is only part of the investment programme that is taking place to ensure that the airport continues to serve the needs of the region.

Mr. Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was a tragedy that when the new terminal at Manchester was opened on 1 May it was not ready for use as a result of an electricians' strike? The conditions for passengers going in and out of the airport were appalling. That is an example of what happens under local authority control.

Mr. Pike: That is an outrageous statement. The important factor is that development is taking place and will continue to take place. The fact remains that Manchester International airport is a major and successful airport.
One of the problems that faces Manchester International airport is the internationally fixed agreements on which airlines can fly where. We want more liberalisation and an end to restrictions. If an airline believes that it can successfully fly in and out of Manchester International airport, or any other airport, it should be able to do so without becoming involved in all the red tape and the various agreements that now apply,


which make negotiations so difficult. In Manchester there have been continuing discussions for the past couple of years that involve new companies that want to operate services in and out of the airport. They have been unable so far to make much progress. I hope that further progress will he made. Some new routes have been agreed within the past three years, but others, especially those involving flights to north America, are still blocked.
We have to go a long way yet before passengers are offered the services and fares to which they are entitled when travelling to other parts of Europe. Fare levels for European flights are exceptionally high in Europe generally when compared with fares for transatlantic flights. That is another area in which we want to see progress.
The hon. Member for Gedling referred to bus transport and claimed that local government has saved about £40 million in subsidies following the deregulation of bus services as a result of the Transport Act 1985. I do not dispute that figure but the way in which the saving has been achieved is unacceptable. Those employed in the industry have a worse package of pay and service conditions now than before privatisation and deregulation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense.] I hear what hon. Members are saying in interjections. They will have the opportunity of addressing the House if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The majority of those working for what were municipal undertakings and parts of National Bus, including those who work in the great conurbations, have inferior conditions of service compared with those which they enjoyed as an overall package before deregulation. If that is what deregulation and privatisation mean, I do not want them. It is unacceptable that working people should be given a worse package of conditions in 1989. We should remember that deregulation has yet to be introduced in London.
Some of the consequences that we feared as a result of the implementation of the 1985 Act have yet to be experienced, but I have no doubt that there will be continuing reduction in service levels in many areas and that some of the things that we said would happen will happen. Undertakings are changing hands rapidly. For example, Ribble has been taken over by a Scottish undertaking. The Government said that they did not want massive undertakings and that National Bus had to be split up. Now smaller undertakings are being taken over by larger ones. In parts of south Wales, for example, only one company is operating a service. Caerphilly is a specific example. There is no longer an alternative service. That was not the intention of the 1985 Act. There have been many failures and I think that we shall see more problems rather than fewer as the years pass.
I accept that there has been a tremendous improvement in many respects in British Rail over recent years. The present management seems generally far more determined than its predecessors to maintain and improve the rail service. However, there are still many problems within British Rail. The greatest problem is that Government investment and subsidy has been cut in many directions. There must be more investment if the rail service is to meet the needs of the nation. From an energy and environment point of view, the railways offer a far better way of travelling long distances within this country than any other

means of transportation. We should be encouraging them. We should also be encouraging more freight to be carried by rail.
The Channel tunnel offers British Rail the greatest opportunity that has come its way this century. It will never get such an opportunity again for many years. It must seize the chance to get freight back on to the railway system and to secure the investment programme that we want. That should be accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I see no reason why goods going to the continent or coming from the continent should be taken by lorry to London or Folkestone and the Channel tunnel itself. We want railways services running direct to the continent from the major regions of the United Kingdom, whether the destination is Germany, Italy, France, or wherever. That must happen.
I voted against the Second Reading of the King's Cross Railways Bill, which was introduced on behalf of the British Rail last week, because there was a refusal to accept a direction that the freight needs and passenger requirements of the regions should be examined within the context of the Bill. I am far from convinced that the King's Cross proposals will meet the needs of the regions. That is regrettable. It seems that there will not be an acceptable solution. Because of the existing connections for Channel tunnel traffic that bypasses London it will take almost as long to reach the tunnel from Manchester, for example, as it will from France to the furthest parts of the EEC. That is not acceptable to the north-west. We in the north-west want our export potential to develop for our manufacturing interests.
There is massive investment in the east coast line. The west coast line was electrified some years ago and when compared with the east coast provision it is beginning to look distinctly jaded. It is a much slower line and improvements must be made to bring it up to standard. We need fast links bypassing London and terminating at the Channel tunnel and far better services to the north-west than we currently have, and more must be done to ensure that InterCity services connect with local services better than they do now.
I refer finally to roads. I am by no means opposed to roads investment and recognise that it must be undertaken. I would criticise the Government for not investing enough. Certain sections of our motorway network are still being developed as two-lane highways when three lanes are clearly needed. That is not necessarily a criticism of Ministers because they come and go, whereas civil servants remain in office for longer and they have failed on occasion to take a sufficiently long-term view of future requirements. A number of motorways already suffer from under-capacity. On Fridays traffic on the M1, for example, is almost stationary all the way from its southern end to at least the M6 junction. People who daily travel along the southern section into London find themselves in traffic that crawls all the way, which is totally unsatisfactory.
In Manchester, the M63 bridge over the canal at Barton has recently been widened, but it is almost at full capacity even though the whole scheme has not yet been completed—another short-term folly. The Government agreed to linking the M65 westwards with the M6 and M61, and now that that improvement is back in the programme we hope that it will be completed as soon as possible. I believe


strongly that a second east-west crossing will ultimately be needed, with the M65 extending eastwards into Yorkshire, joining the M62.
We should not look to the privately funded sector for a road network. On the continent, there are toll motorways and autoroutes, and as someone who uses French autoroutes from time to time, I can tell the House that they are extremely expensive. The necessity to use toll booths itself causes massive hold-ups. French petrol is also dear, so the cost of motoring in France is extremely high. One could also argue that in Britain, road tax and VAT on cars and duty on petrol also mean that motorists here are heavily taxed and should not be asked to pay for travelling on a super-elite private road network.
The hon. Member for Gedling seemed to advocate that one solution would be the provision of some private roads within the network. I hope that neither the Minister nor the Government will adopt that line. In Britain, most towns are closer to each other than they are in many continental countries. In France, for example, all the autoroutes stop well short of Paris, Lyon and other such places. Were such a system to operate here, one would hardly get out of London before one was having to pay to use an autoroute to Coventry or Birmingham and then leaving it again. That is not a realistic option for Britain. The only people able to use autoroutes in this country would be those whose travel expenses are met for them, and the very wealthy. Nevertheless, the Government must improve the M1 and the rest of the motorway network. I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling that the time that elapses between agreeing and designing a motorway concept and the completion of its construction is far too long. Something must be done to speed up that process.
The debate has covered a wide range of subjects. I am glad of the opportunity to make points different from those of the hon. Member for Gedling, and I am pleased that he chose transport for the subject of his debate.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) for allowing the House to debate the subject of transport, and I am particularly grateful to him for his complimentary remarks about me and about the small role that I played as a Back Bencher in the Transport Act 1985 as it passed through the House.
I was not the only Member who was hammered by local authorities opposed to that legislation. I was subjected to a barrage of abuse both locally in Nottingham and in the shire. That abuse was backed by the spending of massive sums of public money by the city and county councils on a campaign to oppose the proposed changes. It is beyond question, that whatever criticisms remain, the prophets of doom were certainly wrong in respect of the city of Nottingham. It would be foolish to suggest that deregulation proved equally beneficial and successful throughout the country. I am sure that that is not so, but the House will forgive me if my remarks are relatively parochial and deal with how deregulation worked in my area and with the transport problems and policies that flowed from it.
One major campaign four years ago suggested that the Government's proposals would be detrimental to the

interests of pensioners' and senior citizens' concessionary fares—that they would be abolished or that it would no longer be possible to provide them. I shall be interested to hear from any right hon. or hon. Member who can tell the House of any area of the country where pensioners no longer enjoy the concessionary fare schemes that existed before deregulation. However, the threat was made by the Labour party in my county—where, to the best of my knowledge, the concessionary scheme is as good as ever it was. In many respects, it is even better. It is shameful when political debate sinks to the lowest levels, with the Opposition usually telling pensioners, "If the wicked Tories get their way, you will not get this or that." Their screams of outrage are invariably proved false two or three years later. They get away with it almost every time, which is a matter of great sadness to me.
Another issue that concerned hon. Members in all parts of the House was quality control of public service vehicles. Prior to deregulation, it was said that traffic commissioners would not have the teeth to impose desirable levels of quality control—or, if they did, that they would not have the will to do so. I cannot speak for the rest of the country, but in Nottinghamshire the traffic commissioners are fulfilling the role that was set for them. Only recently, they ordered 35 public service vehicles used by one operator off the road because they failed to meet the desired standards. That operator was clearly incapable of bringing those vehicles up to standard, so in the public interest, rightly, they were taken off the road. Despite that major plank of Labour opposition, the traffic commissioners clearly have teeth and are prepared to use them.
Having made his little speech, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) promptly disappeared. That is a pity, because he let the cat out of the bag by saying that Labour's fears had not materialised. How right he is. It is a shame that he is not here to tell us how many tens of thousands of pounds his local authority spent on telling us what a disaster deregulation would be. I hope that when he comes back, or when he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will have the courtesy to apologise to the House for that waste of public money.
Again, I can speak only for our municipal undertaking, but the running of the Nottingham company—and, I am sure, many others—is no longer bedevilled by the meddling of elected councillors who have other fish to fry. It is still owned 100 per cent. by the city council, but it is being run as a proper commercial undertaking with a sensible board. To our delight, the staff who have places on that board co-operate with the managers and directors to ensure that the undertaking is run properly. Now, believe it or not, Nottingham City Transport pays a dividend to the company's owners—the Nottingham ratepayers—instead of draining off hundreds of thousands of pounds each year to subsidise their work, money that could have been better spent on other services in our city.
Only about a fortnight ago, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, answering questions from me, expressed the hope that at some time in the future the staff of Nottingham City Transport—and, indeed, the staff of many municipal undertakings—would be given the chance of taking a real stake in the company by becoming shareholders. Since then I have talked to management and staff in Nottingham and encountered a genuine desire for such a course.
I intend to talk first to the minority Conservative group in Nottingham, who may be a bit more receptive to such


an idea than the controlling majority party, but I hope that even the latter will realise in the end that that is the right way in which to run a major, multi-million pound undertaking which is providing an excellent public service. I fear that it will not be an easy task, as the deputy leader of Nottingham city council has already been reported in the local press as saying that he wants to return to the old arrangement whereby the transport undertaking was merely a committee of the city council, and councillors could engage in their customary meddling, as they did four years ago. To ensure that that councillor never has his way, Conservative members must guarantee that we win the next general election.

Mr. Snape: I hesitate to burst the bubble of euphoria on the Conservative Benches, especially two years before the election. May I ask the hon. Gentleman, however, why it is, if councillors who take an interest in their financial undertakings are meddling, that when Conservative Members take directorships in business they are keeping in touch with the public?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's question follows from my remarks, but I think that he would be the first to admit that, for a variety of reasons which we all accept, in the main the quality of our councillors is not what we would wish. In effect, they are doing an unpaid part-time job, and not everyone has the time or the energy to become involved in local affairs. Many elected councillors get asked to go on this or that committee, and some used, unfortunately, to end up on the transport committee with no knowledge whatever of public transport and, probably, even less interest. Then they used to meddle. It was a case of, "The people in my ward would like an extra bus. We are in control: let us have it", irrespective of the merits of the case. That is what I meant by meddling, as I think that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) knows very well.
The stake in the undertaking allowed to staff and management must be large enough to make worth while their individual and collective commitment to that undertaking. It must be large enough to deter any pirate or asset-stripping bidder who might wish to take control, and large enough for the shares to go to ratepayers as well as staff: it must exceed the magic 51 per cent. I am perfectly happy for the local authority to retain a large minority holding, though perhaps not as much as 49 per cent.—that might be a little dangerous—but perhaps 30 or 40 per cent. To free the company from the Treasury rules, however, the holding of the outside shareholders—staff, management, ratepayers or an even wider group—must be over 51 per cent.
It is not widely appreciated that a major company such as Nottingham City Transport cannot carry out its forward investment planning on the basis of its own commercial criteria; the investment is part of the local authority's borrowing requirement. If the local authority seeks to spend all its allowed borrowing on housing, for instance, unless the bus undertaking can fund its capital investment entirely out of cash flow—which would be unusual in the case of any major business—it will be defeated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has already referred to road infrastructure. I often travel up and down the MI, as I am sure he does as well. It is often described as the longest parking lot in Europe. Clearly something

must be done, and I hope that the major statement from the Secretary of State that was rumoured in the Sunday press to be expected this week will give the glad tidings that he is about to put extra lanes on to the M1. They cannot come too soon.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling pointed out, however, it is no good having the main arteries unless there is access to them for the major cities along the route. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport well knows, the city of Nottingham has been banging on the Department's door since 1971 asking for something to be done about the southern link between Nottingham and the M1—the A453.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially those representing urban areas—although, on reflection, I agree that this may apply elsewhere as well—will know that whenever someone wants to build a new road some people are bound to be disadvantaged, and there are screams of objection all round. The A453 is no exception. I shall not go into the details, but almost any option that the Secretary of State finally announces as his preferred option will be objected to, which means that there will have to be a public inquiry. All I am asking is that the Minister should make up his mind now. If it means a public inquiry, let us have it and get it over with. I do not want the southern route into the city of Nottingham to be dug up while I am in the middle of the next general election campaign.

Mr. Simon Burns: May I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on being successful in the ballot and choosing such a relevant and important subject for debate.
I welcome the motion, not only because it deals with transport policy after 1992 but because it calls on the Government to continue their efforts to identify ways of mitigating and resolving the challenges to transport in the years leading up to 1992.
The year 1992 will be a vital one for transport policy in particular because I hope and expect that in the parliamentary Session 1991–92, when we are in our fourth term of office, there will be a Bill to privatise British Rail. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that nowhere in these islands will the joy of the liberalisation of the commuters from the tyranny of British Rail be more overwhelmingly welcomed than in my constituency of Chelmsford.
Chelmsford is one of the largest commuting stations in this country, with over 12,000 long-suffering commuters travelling to work in London and arriving at Liverpool street station every morning. Quite frankly, they are fed up to the back teeth with the disruption, the delays arid the poor service that Network SouthEast offers them. They are bored with sitting day after day in trains that have ground to a halt, usually outside Liverpool street station, and admiring the rather indifferent architecture of Bethnal Green railway station. My constituents are fed up with the cancellation of trains, with the running of trains behind time and with being herded like cattle into carriages where, all too often, there are not enough seats for them.
What is even more infuriating is that my constituents are having to pay through the nose for the privilege of this treatment. The record of Network SouthEast is altogether


too depressing. Its punctuality target is 90 per cent. of trains to arrive within five minutes of their scheduled times. I would argue that that in itself is an extraordinarily lax target. Those figures seem, however, to be at odds with the experience of many of my constituents, even though they are, as I have said, a remarkably lax benchmark.
Overcrowding is a major problem. The targets for Network SouthEast are that, on average, load factors should not exceed 100 per cent. on slam door trains and 135 per cent. on sliding door trains. In both cases, passengers should not have to stand for more than a maximum of 20 minutes. However, the actuality is radically different from the targets. Average loading of trains in 1986 was 114 per cent. on slam door trains and 139 per cent. on sliding door trains. As a commuter before I was elected to this House, I know from bitter personal experience that many users of the Chelmsford to Liverpool street line have to stand for far in excess of the 20 minutes that is meant to be the maximum.
The national British Rail cleansing targets for carriages are a joke. My constituents constantly have to travel up and down the line on trains that clearly have not seen water or cleaning plants for far longer than a month. Carriages tend to be filthy. Only a small amount of inside cleaning is done to them. In the past, the excuse by Network SouthEast was the need to invest and to improve the antiquated rolling stock, points and signals along the line to Colchester. We have always been promised jam tomorrow, but tomorrow never seems to come for my constituents.
To be fair to Network SouthEast, I must admit that over the last year or two there have been some improvements; some new rolling stock has been bought. In the past, our part of Network SouthEast always used to get the rolling stock that had been used up on other parts of the network. It was then foisted on to this backwater of East Anglia—as though we would not notice that we were getting not second-hand rolling stock but third, fourth or fifth-hand rolling stock that was long past the age when it should have been put out to pasture.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Does my hon. Friend agree that, once that rolling stock has been abandoned as unsuitable for Chelmsford commuters, it is then put to use for commuters who travel to Downham Market and King's Lynn?

Mr. Burns: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I am sure that she is correct. I have a great deal of sympathy for her point. I know how dreadful the rolling stock is when it is fobbed off on to my hon. Friend's constituents, before going to the knacker's yard or whatever yard railway rolling stock finally goes to.
However, there seemed to be light at the end of the tunnel earlier this year. We were assured by Network SouthEast that work on the new points and the new signals that are needed on the line would begin over Easter. Liverpool street station was to be closed not for one but for four whole days so that the work could be done. However, I am sad to have to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when Liverpool street station reopened after Easter Monday the disruption and the trouble on the line were worse than they had ever been.
British Rail had accepted that the work was to be done with equipment supplied by Westinghouse. What no one seems to have taken into account or to have looked into was whether the microprocessors on the trackside modules would be compatible with the overhead electrified lines. Needless to say, they were not. As soon as the line started up again, there were fuses and shorts left, right and centre, because the microprocessors were not fit for the job that they were meant to do.
The misery went on for a number of days before some bright person in British Rail found out that the equipment that British Rail was using at York—made by GEC, which is a major employer in my constituency—was compatible with the overhead lines. Therefore, they brought it down from York and put it into the Liverpool street trackside modules so that they could get the system to work. It is incredible that no one had considered at the tendering stage or at the testing stage whether the microprocessors would work. It is yet another example of Network SouthEast's short-sightedness, which once again did not help to raise the standard of service to my constituents.

Mr. Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman blame that chaos on the management, the staff, the public sector or the private sector, or even the Government?

Mr. Burns: I blame the disruption on whoever—I assume that it was Network SouthEast, or the British Railways Board—was responsible for placing the tender for equipment that clearly was not fit to serve the purpose for which it was put into the trackside modules.
My constituents found—to add insult to injury, yet again—it absolutely unbelievable when recently they read that, whereas they believed—and I support them in their belief—that when the disruption to the service had been caused not by vandalism or by inclement weather but by problems that can be laid at the door of British Rail, that British Rail refused steadfastly to give any refund to season ticket holders or purchasers of tickets. It is steadfast in its refusal to do so. As a sop to public relations, it says that if someone has lost some money, due to not being able to go, say, to the theatre because of disruption on the line caused in one way or another by British Rail, it will be prepared sympathetically to consider giving refunds. That is a great deal! Most of my constituents do not travel at 8 am to the theatre; they are travelling to work. When they return to Chelmsford in the evening, they are not usually going to the theatre, or anywhere else where they will have to pay out money. They are going home to enjoy the evening with their families. That does not have a price on it so that British Rail can then fulfil its promise sympathetically to consider making a refund.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take the board of British Rail to one side and ask it to think again. My constituents and those of other hon. Members should be given sympathetic consideration when asking for refunds when they cannot get to work or when the disruption in service does not involve a particular financial loss for them. They often have to wait 20 minutes or even one or two hours for a train that long since should have taken them on their journeys. My constituents were especially irritated recently when they heard that British Rail had paid a £17 taxi fare for one of its drivers who could not get


home because of the work to rule by other drivers. My constituents think that that driver should have had to find his own way home, even by walking if necessary.
The privatisation of the rail network cannot come a day too soon. It will attract private companies that will have to pay attention to the wishes of their customers and provide a service that actually lives up to their claims. They will have to listen to their customers who want a decent journey to London and back again. That is not asking for a great deal because people pay a great deal of money to travel on the rail network. Year in and year out, fare increases are greater than the rate of inflation—with the hollow explanation that British Rail needs the extra money to reinvest to provide a better service. My constituents have not noticed a better service.
The time for Network SouthEast to pull up its socks has long since passed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will explain to it the facts of commercial life. After 1992, we will not have to worry about pointing out the facts of commercial life to a state-owned enterprise because it will, I hope, be privatised. I shall be returned to the House with an increased majority because I, like many of my hon. Friends, have identified the correct action necessary to obtain a better service for my constituents.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) for not being present at the start of the debate. Towards the end of my 180-mile journey to the House today, I was delayed for an hour in west London because of traffic jams. That illustrates many of the major problems in the London area. We can quite quickly traverse large parts of the country, but when we reach the south-east corner it is difficult to make progress.
A mere three and a half years from now Britain will be transformed when it becomes part of the single European market. For the first time, it will be integrated into a true community with our continental partners, sharing with them both opportunities and challenges. Britain, like any member state, must prepare itself for changes in both business and the lives of its inhabitants. I regret that the Government's policies have done little to achieve that, especially in the transport sector. Placing advertisements such as "Europe Open for Business" alongside railway lines may raise public awareness of our role in Europe—and as such are to be welcomed—but they beg the question of what the Government have done. They have done virtually nothing about infrastructure investment, which is a serious matter for both businesses and people in Britain.
The south-east is suffering from severe congestion, which costs the country £15 billion a year. That is a great deal of money and it could be used in ways far better than on stationary vehicles needlessly using fuel. We can all imagine the environmental effects of that, and the cost to business of such delays is immense. Unless further investment is made in our motorway system, in another five years most motorways will have stationary vehicles along their entire length. The reason for that statement is clear. Twelve years ago there were 16 million cars on the roads; today there are 28 million, with 2 million vehicles being sold each year. With such a rate of mathematical progression, it is not hard to envisage traffic on most of our

main arterial roads becoming stationary, especially on the motorway system. It is art immense challenge to any Government, whatever their colour.
Because of Britain's poor infrastructure, it will be largely cut off from the 280 million consumers on mainland Europe. We do not have an adequate transport system to cope with possible demand. The Government have not properly addressed the provision of an integrated transport system. They have neglected their responsibilities, especially in respect of funding. They are sitting back and watching the chaos develop around them. Thai is a destructive policy. They must surely realise that investment holds the golden key to our nation's economic future.
There are many anomalies, especially in the rail system. The Treasury requires British Rail to guarantee a 7 per cent. return on investment for each of its major projects. I understand that the figure is soon to rise to 9 per cent. Perhaps the Minister will either confirm or deny that when he replies to the debate. No other rail system in mainland Europe is required to produce such a high rate of return on a single investment. Indeed, SNCF of France takes into account the social benefits that might come from any investment. A 7 per cent.—or, even more horrific, the proposed 9 per cent.—return on investment in, for example, the electrification of lines simply does not add up when compared with the costs of motorway jams.
My party advocates investment in the future. We argue for a transport policy that cuts down wasted time and enables increased export earnings by using each means of transport to its best advantage. Where traffic is too scarce to justify railways or too heavy to accommodate passenger cars, the bus is the environmentally sound and cheap vehicle to operate. For the long-distance traveller, buses, local railways and passenger cars should feed into a network of electrified railways that offer the passenger a through service in a comfortable environment. Regional air services should complement such a system. If that were the case throughout the country, our motorways and city centres would not be clogged up with cars and heavy vehicles.
Britain has two busy airports—Heathrow and Gatwick—in the south-east, yet neither is linked to the other by rail connections. The airports are linked by rail to central London, but they are not linked to each other.
The integration of London area airports, the building of new ones and the integration of all existing airports into the national and European rail network is especially important. The French are investing in their rail structure to integrate Charles de Gaulle airport near Paris.
This must not be a matter for party politics. We need a high-speed through rail link that connects the regions with the Channel tunnel. That can be achieved only by building a rail bypass around London. Such a bypass would not be environmentally damaging as it could be linked to further investment in the M25 to widen it. The high speed rail link could be built by the side of the motorway at the same time. A rail link running in a semi-circle from south of Luton to the Maidstone area would join Heathrow and Gatwick airports and solve many of the problems associated with getting rail and road traffic from Scotland, the north, Wales and the west country to Europe.
London is already far too congested, and to bring more people and goods in from the Channel tunnel would make matters far worse. Such a course would present immense


costs to industry and to people who want to get from the regions and countries of Britain to the continent. This is one of the greatest challenges before the Government.
My nation of Wales will not even have an electrified rail link from Cardiff to London, let alone a direct through service to the continent, by the time the Channel tunnel is completed and working. The west country will not get such a link either, and nor will the far west of the west midlands. This is a very serious matter for industry, tourism and passenger traffic in those areas. There has to be a revolution in thinking about public and private transport.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable interest and pressure in the Republic of Ireland for upgrading the Crewe to Holyhead line so that more rail freight can be brought from the Channel tunnel to the Irish channel ports?

Mr. Livsey: I am aware of that because of the studies made in north Wales to get the north Wales line to Holyhead electrified so that the Irish can use what they call the land bridge to Europe. Unless the line is electrified, traffic from Ireland will be seriously disadvantaged. I should have thought that the European Community could help with improving such links.
When we compare investment in rail transport infrastructure in this country with that in France—they are starting to build a 114 km Paris bypass costing £1·7 billion—we can see how far behind we are getting. After the Channel tunnel is constructed, when we see the far better transport infrastructure on the continent, we will realise how seriously disadvantaged we are. The Government must rethink their strategy for connecting the regions and countries of Britain to mainland Europe.
On behalf of Wales, I plead for an assurance that the second Severn crossing will be completed by 1995, as the Secretary of State has promised. It is a vital link to the south-east of England and to the continent of Europe. Unless this investment takes place and a policy for an integrated transport system is pursued, Britain's future, in economic terms, the quality of life and the environment is dire indeed.
The Government must make it clear that money must never again come in the way of safety. We must regret that we have had a number of tragedies recently. The Government must realise that they have to sponsor investment in transport so that, by the end of the century, we have an industry which is safe, environmentally sound, efficient and which serves all parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful to be called, and I should like to echo much of what has already been said about a decent economic transport policy that will encourage economic prosperity. It is important to have an internal and an external transport network.
I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said about Network SouthEast. I spent seven years commuting on Network SouthEast and I travelled more than 25,000 miles in the process. I assure the House that much needs to be done to improve it. I am convinced, as is my hon. Friend, that the way to improve it is to put it into the private sector. When in the public sector, British Airways suffered precisely the same

problems that British Rail now suffers. Now that it is in the private sector, British Airways is second to none in the world.
We also need to improve our roads. One area where we can make an improvement now is the M40, part of which is yet to be built. One or two years ago, we talked of a 12-mile stretch of two-lane motorway. I understand that the specification has been increased to three lanes, but I submit that it might be an idea to think about four lanes now rather than to improve the M1 at some time in the future. In other words, it would be better to improve the M40 quickly to reflect the increasing rate of economic growth, because we can do something about it now as we already have planning permission for it.
Because of our geographical location, large seaports such as Liverpool were built up. It was a gateway to Europe and the rest of the world, especially the United States. The important point is the spin-off advantages of such development. Liverpool developed as a port, but many ancillary industries followed. That development had an effect on shipbuilding.
The same is true today of air transport. Once again, we are fortunate because of our geographical position. We are the gateway to Europe and a point of departure to the rest of the world. At Heathrow we have the most important hub in Europe. It is the result of our geographical position, but it is also the result of the deregulation of the past decade. It is the result of the privatisation of British Airways and the British Airports Authority and the fact that we have given aviation entrepreneurs an opportunity to develop air routes when the need arises.
That means that we are in a very good position to deal with a unitary market and the deregulation of air routes throughout Europe after 1992. But that position is now being challenged by airports on the Continent such as Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and particularly Schiphol, which already considers itself to be the third London airport. We cannot stand still, as we have to make certain that after 1992 the primary European hub of operations for air routes in and out of Europe remains in Britain and does not move across the Channel. The importance of that is clear. In the same way as we need to export products to survive, we should be able to export our air transport services. It is just as useful to sell an air ticket for an airline owned and operated in this country as it is to sell a motor car that is produced in this country.
How should we achieve that objective? First, we have to make certain that we have sufficient terminal capacity and ground facilities at our airports to cope with the increasing throughput of passengers. Secondly, we need to make certain that we have sufficient runway capacity at our airports. Thirdly, we need to tackle the problem of air traffic control delays.
The most immediate decision on terminals should already have been taken. There should be a fifth terminal at Heathrow. That must happen very quickly indeed. Heathrow has sufficient runway capacity, but it will not be able to deal with the extra number of passengers passing through the airport because of the larger aircraft that are increasingly being used by airlines.
We also need to examine those airports that remain the responsibility of local authorities. The best example of an airport that is not being run as well as it should is Manchester. I know that I struck a chord or drew blood from one or two Opposition Members when I mentioned terminal A at Manchester airport. It is most unfortunate


that that terminal was opened on 1 May. I do not know whether the significance of that date had anything to do with who runs Manchester council, but the opening of that terminal was a disgrace and compared most unfavourably with the experience of the first day of the north terminal at Gatwick airport. The electrics did not work, the doors did not work and the catering facilities did not work. I was at the opening of the north terminal at Gatwick and the first day of operation of the new terminal at Manchester. The comparison between the terminal at Gatwick, opened by the British Airports Authority, and the new terminal at Manchester, for which Manchester council was responsible, is a good example of the difference between the private sector and the public sector.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman drew blood, at least metaphorically, when he was stupid enough to suggest in an intervention that strikes only occur in the public sector. It would be equally stupid for me to say that because the privatised BAA plc is anxious to screw its retailers into the ground at Gatwick and Heathrow and those retailers are protesting to hon. Members on both sides of the House, the private sector deliberately exploits its customers who are also its victims. That is as stupid as the hon. Gentleman's earlier remark that strikes happen only in the public sector at Manchester airport.

Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman should look more closely at what I said. I said that Manchester airport is run by a Labour-controlled local authority that tried to open the new terminal without the correct preparations for that opening. That was at least partly the result of an electricians' strike, but there were other causes. I do not think that that has anything to do with what he said about retailers at Gatwick.
I should like briefly to mention runways and air traffic control movements. If we get the terminals right and increase the throughoutput of passengers in the south-east, we shall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said, he able to wait until the turn of the century before we need another runway in the south-east. But by the year 2000 we shall certainly need another runway at Stansted, Gatwick or Heathrow.
We can ensure that we have adequate runway capacity for the increased traffic after 1992. The hub and spoke argument about air traffic control movements is that if we provide the necessary feeder services in and out of the main hubs, we are liable to attract more traffic. One of the problems is that our three London airports contain a great deal of charter traffic which tends to clog up the works at certain hours of the day. We have to distinguish between scheduled operations, charter traffic, which is, for all intents and purposes, almost scheduled operations, and the package holiday market, which in many cases can be moved to other airports. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said, some of that traffic could be moved to other airports and possibly to RAF airports such as Manston, Greenham common and Brize Norton. We should also consider business aviation. We have to make certain that we do not throw out business aircraft from the major airports until we have somewhere to put them. If we did that, we would make Heathrow and Gatwick less attractive to business men.
We can increase our airport capacity through regional airport development. I agree with the hon. Member for

Burnley (Mr. Pike) about the importance of improving services out of Manchester. However, the hold-ups involved in transatlantic routes are on the other side of the Atlantic with the Federal Aviation Authority which cannot decide what it wants from the reciprocal arrangements that we have with the United States. I have no doubt that we can develop further regional airports. We can develop Manchester as a hub for operations in northern Europe so that people who want to go to north Germany and Scandinavia would fly into Manchester first and then fly on to various destinations. By doing that, and by following my other suggestions, we shall be able to meet the demands of increased air traffic in the next 10 or 20 years.
We must examine air traffic control which is the key to the whole issue. We can have as many runways and terminals as we like, but unless we sort out our antiquated air traffic control system it will be wasted money. The introduction of universal flow control last year did nothing to increase the number of air movements; it did the precise opposite. It is high time that the national air traffic control centre was hived off from the Civil Aviation Authority. We also need to look beyond 1995 and the introduction of the central control function to the production and building of the new air traffic control facility which will replace the one at West Drayton. The sooner we do that the better. We cannot afford once again to fall behind in terms of the air traffic control facilities that our airlines need if we are to maintain our position as the primary hub in Europe.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Why did my hon. Friend say that he would welcome the idea of privatising the air traffic control operation? Does he believe that there is spare capacity or that it is an inefficiently run organisation?

Mr. Mans: The term I used was "hived off". I was suggesting that the regulatory function of the CAA should not be mixed up with the operations of the air traffic control network. They are separate functions and they should be run separately. I should like to see the national air traffic control system in private hands, possibly as a result of an employees' buy-out, but other hon. Members may have other thoughts. It is most important that the two should be separate.
Further development of air transport provides huge opportunities for wealth generation, job expansion and export earnings. We have to plan for the next 20 years, not the next five or 10, in order to get the right answers. We have already made certain that the United Kingdom's major airports provide a gateway to Europe and a departure point from it. We need to ensure that our airports' capacity and air traffic control network provide the support for our highly efficient airline operators to take on the rest of the world.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on his choice of subject for debate and on the skill with which he introduced it. I must commend him for drawing the attention of the House to the importance of transport, if on this day of all days we need it drawn to our attention, and for putting the importance of transport and communications in the context of our needs in 1992 and beyond.
I represent an East Anglian constituency, and East Anglia is particularly well placed with regard to the European Economic Community. It is so well placed that on a foggy day fortunate viewers in north Norfolk may find themselves viewing Dutch television without adjusting their set. Although that is a telecommunications point, it illustrates that East Anglia faces continental Europe.
Several flourishing ports, including the exceptionally successful Felixstowe, mean that exports can leave easily and cheaply for continental Europe—a point increasingly appreciated by trade and industry not just in East Anglia. I do not imply that development and optimism are limited to Felixstowe. The ports of King's Lynn and Great Yarmouth have ambitious expansion plans for 1992 and beyond.
If East Anglia is to flourish as the obvious gateway to Europe, continuing investment and improvement in both road and rail networks is essential. There have been considerable improvements in both the A11 and A47, which are two of the region's most important roads and certainly those most vital to Norfolk over the past years. Yet Norfolk has only 20 miles of dual carriageway out of a total of 5,000 miles. That means that of Norfolk's total road network 99·8 per cent. is not dual. I wonder whether that is a record. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister can tell me. Moreover, although the position in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire is slightly better, the overall percentage of dualled roads in the three counties is still only 2 per cent.
Those figures would be curious anyway and they are certainly unacceptable to people in East Anglia who see with envy the large sums of cash expended elsewhere. I must emphasise that this Government have invested an enormous amount of public money in an excellent infrastructure of good road networks. East Anglians are also aware that undualled roads and those which switch from dual to single carriageway systems cause twice as many accidents as those which are fully dualled. Therefore, they feel themselves under-privileged compared with other areas and with regard to accident rates.
The figures are curious because, although East Anglia has the smallest population of all the English regions, it has the fastest population growth, as my hon. Friend the Minister will know. It also has twice the national average traffic growth. That is again highly significant. The three East Anglian counties have a much higher car ownership than elsewhere. It is 10 per cent. higher in Cambridgeshire, 12 per cent. higher in Norfolk and 10 per cent. higher in Suffolk. Therefore, our roads are needed and are used.
A particularly interesting contrast can be drawn with Scotland, which shows what we in East Anglia believe are defective ways of making judgments on where expenditure and investment should be made on roads. Scotland has a population of 5 million, whereas East Anglia's population is 2 million. In 1986–87, East Anglia had 19 per cent. of the expenditure spent on Scottish roads. If the figure had been calculated on comparative geographical size or population size, East Anglia would have had 25 per cent. of what was spent on Scotland, or 40 per cent. of the total. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can say how these sums are calculated.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said, this weekend there have been

rumours of a possible White Paper which would include future investment schemes. The A11 and A47 are included in those rumours and I hope that they will prove to be true. I commend the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling about the role that the private sector may take in the investment, given the enthusiasm of industry and commerce in East Anglia for good access to the ports which I described at the beginning of my speech. In particular, planning gain may be interesting to those industries and firms which want a good speedy communication network to the East Anglian coast.
I am sure that the hearts of all hon. Members present, with the exception of one or two, bled for the plight of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and his constituents. In East Anglia we should all be delighted with the investment in the electrification of the Liverpool street—Norwich line, on which Chelmsford lies, and the promise of electrification between London and King's Lynn. A good dose of consumerism, possibly injected by private sector interests into the management of British Rail, could only be in the interests of its users. I am thinking particularly of cleanliness. Unfortunate commuters between Liverpool street and King's Lynn never see the view. Not only is the rolling stock excessively old, but it is consistently coated with a think layer of grime. It is their impression that they are travelling at night. Moreover, although breakdowns are frequent, and have been frequent while engineering works have been taking place between Liverpool street and Norwich, there is seldom a word of explanation or an apology to the commuters who, by their payments, are making the whole operation possible.
I conclude by mentioning a problem on the railway line between Thetford and Norwich. Recently, the number of trains stopping on that line has been cut from 14 to five. The number of trains travelling along the line has not been cut; what has been cut is the number of opportunities for passengers to get on them. It is extraordinary that a service which is supposed to exist in the interests of the people who use it could provide any rationale for running trains through stations while the interested parties stand on the platform unable to mount the train. I am sure that there will be an explanation and, I hope, a complete reversal of that policy. I am following up the matter with British Rail in conjunction with all the enraged commuters who used to travel on the line between Norwich and Thetford and are now unable to do so. They are reduced to waving to the train as it passes briskly by.
The private sector, in helping our communication network both on road and rail, can do two things. It can provide a useful injection of cash but, almost more importantly, it can introduce a positive attitude towards its consumers and customers which, all too sadly, British Rail anyway seems to lack.

Mr. John Bowis: The timing of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) is impeccable. Not only is there a rising interest in transport, but today, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) said, the old saying about it being better to travel than to arrive has never been truer. Some hon. Members have said that the Opposition Benches are a little empty, but I know where Opposition Members are. They are in my constituency trying to find their way through to


the centre of London, and there are no Opposition Whips present because they are all on Lavender hill and the south circular searching for Labour Members who are desperately trying to get through to the House.
It can never be gainsaid that I represent not so much a constituency as a traffic jam. When my constituents get up in the morning—this has been especially true today—they get their cars out, they drive a few yards and then they sit in a traffic jam. So they go back home and decide to catch a train. They wait at the platform, but the trains do not come. If they do arrive, they are not so much things that people get into as things that people burst out of when the doors open. Then my constituents must wait for the next one or the one after that.
My constituents then go down the road and try to get on a bus. The bus stop is probably about half a mile away, and then the bus probably stops at one of the bridges in my constituency because a barge has run into it and the bridge is closed. So they go down the road still further and decide to get on the Underground, but they suddenly realise that we have none. Mine is the bit of London that the planners forgot when it came to transport. It has no Underground stations.
It is not surprising that, as they sit in their gardens, having given up the idea of travelling anywhere, listening to the buzz of traffic and smelling the fumes from the stalled cars, my constituents think that it would be a good idea to have some integrated planning for transport. I agree with the many hon. Members who have referred to the need for integrated planning for London, instead of doing a bit here and a bit there. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take the message on board. It is not within his gift to appoint a Minister for London transport, but I ask him to make the suggestion to people who may have that gift. It would be a blessing for mankind if we had someone to co-ordinate all aspects of transport within the M25 area.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many Opposition Members have always wanted a strategic planning authority for London and were disappointed when the GLC was abolished and was not replaced by a strategic planning authority? Does he agree that there is an overwhelming case for an integrated planning authority that deals with transport and planning for London? If not, the chaos that we have seen today will be as nothing compared with what will happen in the future.

Mr. Bowis: We certainly do not want the GLC back, because it did not invest in transport in London. But I agree about integrated planning in London, and that is why I am asking for a Minister or someone else to take charge of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling will forgive me if my remarks are somewhat London-based, but I come from my constituents with a shopping list. The first item on the list relates to heliports. My constituency has the only heliport in London, which seems a little de trop. Sometimes we are pleased to provide this service for mankind as people bustle down our roads to reach Battersea heliport. But the heliport has become rather full, and people are trying to increase the number of flights by 50 per cent. When my hon. Friend the Minister talks to the people who make the decisions, he should say, "If you want to have flights into London, they must go up and down the river and must not cut corners and cross over houses; nor must they go during the night". It may be a

good idea to have radar screens so that we can tell where the flights are going. The Minister should also talk to the planners of the City airport and suggest that it is about time that heliports were built in other parts of London to share the load. Many of the people who use Battersea heliport come from the City airport, and the last thing that they need or want is to come all the way down to south-west London.
My shopping list also includes roads. Ministers should listen when there is agreement across the Chamber. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned opposition to roads. There is similar opposition from all parties in all the boroughs in my area to the proposals put forward to the Department of Transport by the consultants. That is not the proper solution. It would simply bring more traffic into our area. If the road exists, it will attract more traffic. Nor do we want WEIR—the western environmental improvement route—unless we can find an expensive way of diverting it underground and bringing it out on the A3 beyond the Robin Hood roundabout. If that could be done, I might begin to consider it, but to take traffic down from Shepherds Bush to the river, where it would have nowhere to go but on to my already overcrowded roads, would be nonsense.
Several minor things could be done to improve the roads of London, including odd bits of straightening and widening and better co-ordination of traffic lights. My hon. Friend should consider carefully a scheme that some of us have been promoting called red routing, which would stop parking on through routes. There should be no parking, waiting or delivery between 7 am and 7 pm on through routes into London. It is unnecessary, and every time that one thoughtless person parks or double parks, 10 people are delayed and may suffer the coronaries to which other hon. Members have referred. People should park on side roads, and deliveries should be made outside rush hours. I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to introduce heavy penalties on people who offend in that way.
Many hon. Members have mentioned rail, which would provide some solutions to the transport problems of Greater London. But we should examine the unused and underused lines of London. We should examine existing lines to see whether we can make trains and platforms longer to improve comfort, reliability, speed and safety. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the west London line and to the possibility of reopening a station in Battersea. Battersea High street station was closed during the war and was never reopened. That station could be linked with Chelsea harbour, where I believe a station is proposed. When it is electrified, it could provide a new through route into Clapham junction and thence to Victoria.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Bowis: I am trying to fit in a number of points before ceding to the chuffers from the Front Benches who will produce some light at the end of the tunnel.
Many of my constituents, and people throughout the south-east, come into Waterloo station and then go down what is called "the drain"—the Waterloo and City line. The Waterloo and City line has trains, if one can call them that. They may be the third-hand and fourth-hand trains going back 50 years to which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) referred. It is


high time that that rolling stock was replaced. I know that schemes are shortly to be introduced to do that and I hope that the Minister will give them a swift go-ahead.
The other main request on railways is that the Underground should be brought to Clapham junction. If we do that, we shall have the option of taking further south the Hackney to Chelsea line proposed in the central London rail study, which would relieve the southern end of the Northern line.
There has been talk of British Rail having requested a Bill for only one item in the central London rail study—the east-west line. I am told that that has been requested for November. I hope that that does not mean that the other options will be ruled out. It is important that the Hackney to Chelsea line should be kept to the fore as a real option.
There are many other options that we could discuss in this splendid debate—not least the use of the river by river buses and river taxis. Other hon. Members have referred to bus deregulation and Hoppas. I shall not, as the one thing that I ask of transport is that it should be punctual and I am told that the Front Bench spokesmen are waiting to speak at this very moment. As I pull into my station, I invite them to take off.

Mr. Peter Snape: I do not think that I have been referred to as a chuffer before.

Mr. Bowis: What about a puffer?

Mr. Snape: Or even a puffer; certainly not. Even so, I am prepared to forgive the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) because his speech was excellent. I hope that I shall not prejudice his prospects if I say that the Department of Transport needs men like him. The sooner that common sense the like of which we have just heard emanates from the Government Front Bench, the better.
The hon. Gentleman ought to take the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who initiated the debate, on one side. I had some misgivings when I saw today's Order Paper. It was full of statistics, one or two of which were misleading, and of sentiments which, when they were not cloying, were completely wrong. I am afraid that my forebodings were soon to pitch up against the rock of reality when the hon. Member for Gedling started his speech by praising the Secretary of State for Transport. I shall not attack the Secretary of State in his absence—he has had enough of that from other quarters—but I must say that I should not have considered the present incumbent of the post to be the most successful that we have had over the years.
The right hon. Gentleman is certainly not the worst; that accolade belongs to the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has long been remembered as the worst Secretary of State for Transport the country has had. He is rapidly on his way to proving to be the worst Secretary of State for the Environment that the country has ever had. It is a pretty unenviable double. It is not accurate to describe the term of office of the present Secretary of State for Transport as especially successful, or to say that he has enhanced his prospects.
Besides the inevitable dash of sycophancy that one has come to expect from the younger Conservative Members, I was struck by the fact that the remarks of the hon.

Member for Gedling contradicted those of his hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Gedling talked about British Rail making substantial progress, whereas his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was livid—I think that that is a fair description—about the lack of progress that has been made in one part of British Rail, Network SouthEast. A contradiction runs through all our debates about British Rail. On the one hand, BR is making very good progress in meeting financial targets, while, on the other, we have the decline in services that makes the hon. Member for Chelmsford gnash his teeth. That is because financial targets and quality of service do not go together very well. The fact that British Rail meets its financial targets in obedience to the Treasury, or to the Department of Transport, which is subordinate to the Treasury, inevitably gives rise to the fall in standards that has made the hon. Member for Chelmsford, among others, wax so indignant.
The hon. Member for Gedling also made the plea that is habitual from hon. Members in his part of the world for the electrification of the midland main line. I do not wish to patronise the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out to him that if the midland main line electrification scheme does not meet the criteria laid down by the Government, the line will not be electrified. It is as simple as that. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that those financial criteria are wrong, he should say so.
I hope that the Minister will confirm or deny the point put to him by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). I hope that he will confirm that the investment criteria that have ruled out the electrification of the midland main line—for at least the next seven to 10 years, I would estimate—will not be worsened by the increase from 7 per cent. to 9 per cent.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman noted that my comments did not run counter to British Rail's investment criteria. I sought to make it clear that, as there is a long-term case for electrification, we must be told about it locally so that those who make investment decisions about investing in Nottinghamshire are aware that British Rail intends to ensure that the midland line remains at the forefront of railway technology.

Mr. Snape: I was not for one moment suggesting what the hon. Gentleman has just implied. I have to tell him, as gently as possible, that he falls into the same trap as some of his hon. Friends. They are all in favour of capitalism, red in tooth and claw, except when it applies in their constituencies or to a railway line in which they have an interest. The fact that the midland main line will not meet the Government's criteria in the short term means that it will not be electrified in the short term. If the hon. Member for Gedling wishes that to change, he should get on to the Government to change it.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I do not dissent from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) about the desirability of electrification, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is dangerous to talk about the electrification as the be-all and end-all of good, clean, fast rail travel? Provided that the trains are properly timetabled and kept clean, there can be no more comfortable service than the 125 service.

Mr. Snape: The problem about that is that once the high-speed rail link is built and the Channel tunnel is


opened, the high-speed trains will run no further than St. Pancras—or whatever the new King's Cross interchange is to be called. Electrification is essential, both for freight and for passenger traffic, if the east midlands is to realise the potential that will be created by the Channel tunnel and the high-speed link. I think that that is the reason behind the view of the hon. Member for Gedling that electrification is desirable.

Mr. Livsey: The same criteria applied to the south Wales line, which will not meet British Rail's investment criteria. If cost benefit analysis was applied in that case, the railway line would be electrified very much sooner.

Mr. Snape: No doubt everyone will rush in with pleas from various parts of the country and the Minister, who never likes to say no to anybody—at least not from the Dispatch Box—will have the unenviable task of turning people down. Before that happens, there is a case for re-examining the work of the Leitch committee, which recommended in 1977 that there should be a fairer way of considering proposals for railway electrification, and railway projects in general, in relation to the road network. It suggested that the criteria should be examined to ensure that the same criteria are applied to both modes of transport. Those recommendations have never been properly implemented. If we are to solve the vexed question of which main lines should be electrified, perhaps the Leitch report should be dug out of the vaults and studied by the Minister and others.
The debate has ranged far and wide. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) remarked, the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) made a comprehensive speech about air travel—the speech that he would have made on his motion had this debate not looked like occupying all the available time. He will forgive me if I cannot say much about his speech because of the lack of time. I think that the House will be united in joining the hon. Gentleman in pleading with the Government to be a little more sympathetic to the aims and objectives of regional airports. Air traffic control procedures and the modernisation of the necessary equipment may well form the subject of a debate in the future. If our aviation industry and our airports are to meet the challenges of the 1990s, and if a greater degree of liberalisation is achieved regarding air fares, it is vital that air traffic control is improved.
The hon. Member for Gedling, among others, praised the impact of deregulation on our bus services. I always believe that hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, can afford to be sanguine about the impact of deregulation on the bus network. Politicians are not normally found thronging the bus stops in the rain. Those who praise deregulation because of its impact on the bus services in the rural areas have obviously not talked to many of their rural constituents, nor have they waited for too long for those rural buses—their numbers have been sadly decimated since deregulation. The report that I drew to the attention of the hon. Member for Gedling pointed out the reduction in bus-passenger mileage since deregulation. I recognise that there have been some valuable spin-offs from the legislation, but we must remember that bus managers displayed a conservatism with a small "c"—probably with a large "C" too—in previous years that led them to pooh-pooh the idea of minibuses, particularly on some of the busier routes.
During my short and particularly undistinguished term of office on what was then known as the south-east Lancashire and north-east Cheshire passenger transport authority—fortunately defunct, if only to get rid of that particular mouthful—any suggestion from councillors, those much maligned creatures so disliked by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, that minibuses should be operated in the south Manchester suburbs was greeted with scorn by the so-called professionals in the industry. They assured us that minibuses were generally unreliable and would be unable to cope with the battering that they would receive in everyday service. They were wrong then and, since deregulation, they have been proved wrong again. Perhaps we should acknowledge that since deregulation more minibuses have been introduced in some parts of the country, which have benefited the passengers.
Roads have not been mentioned that much, although I heard one Conservative Member advocate the addition of yet another lane to the M1. My hon. Friends the Members for Burnley and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) were right to say, "So far, so good, but what happens to the extra cars and lorries generated by the extra lane when they reach the end of the motorway?" Certainly in recent years the collective realisation has been that urban motorways are not the answer to our transport problems.
May I tentatively suggest to the Minister that one way in which to ease the congestion on our motorways would be a campaign, undertaken by the Department, to persuade a substantial number of British motorists that the left-hand lane on our motorways is not there purely for decorative purposes. The number of motorists who persist in hogging the centre lane of the M1 and our other motorways is legion. Rather than an extra lane being added to the M1, a somewhat cheaper solution would be to persuade motorists that the left lane is there not simply for milk floats or farm tractors but for all road users. After all, we drive on the left, at least until 1992—and who knows what might happen after that.
I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Gedling for this opportunity to debate public transport. However, listening to the hon. Gentleman and most of his hon. Friends, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Battersea, one would never have thought that we were debating public transport at a time when there is very little of it in London. I am not, however, suggesting that that is the fault of the hon. Member for Gedling.
The "Business Focus" section of The Sunday Times yesterday was full of the City's plans for British Rail. The headline ran:
City wants a ticket to ride.
A number of graphs illustrated what the Conservative party would consider were the eminently praiseworthy achievements of British Rail. They showed that the labour force had gone down, productivity had gone up, costs had gone down and passenger income had risen. Two graphs were missing, however: one to show quality of service standards, which have taken a swift nose dive—the hon. Member for Battersea suggested that—and one to show the wages of the employees within the railway industry compared with those employed in other industries.
I do not want my concluding remarks to be too partisan as I always like to maintain all-party amity as far as possible. If the Government do not tackle the problem of customer and staff satisfaction, the problems faced by


London today will be repeated in the rest of the country in the months to come. I get no personal pleasure from saying that, but unless those problems are dealt with, privatisation in the short term will be immaterial.
I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate these matters again in more detail, particularly aviation, which represents an important sector of our transport network. No one has mentioned shipping, which is another important aspect of our transport policy. In recent years the British merchant fleet has declined dramatically, and some of that decline is due to Budget changes, many inadvertent, which have militated against the British merchant fleet. I know that the Minister will not make a speech about shipping today, but it is a vital part of Britain's transport system and we should debate it.
I am aware of the time and I know that I must conclude. I am running according to Network SouthEast times, so I shall be a couple of minutes late. Nevertheless, this debate has been about important matters and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gedling for giving us the opportunity to debate them.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I begin where the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) ended, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on the quality of his speech. He is particularly well informed and I think that may be for good family reasons. During his speech he was heckled by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and that is the traditional tribute paid to a good speech.
The debate was also an opportunity for my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) to discuss bus deregulation. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the role that he played during the passage of the Bill, which became the Transport Act 1985. My hon. Friend was as perceptive in those matters as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Not many hon. Members are prophets proved right in their own time and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has been. I have no current powers to oblige the privatisation of bus companies and to bring about employee ownership. However, it is certainly not something that I would rule out for the future and I am aware of my hon. Friend's great interest in that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling comprehensively dealt with roads. He is aware of the enormous increase in road usage that we have experienced. From 1982 to 1987 the number of cars grew by 16 per cent. and the number of goods vehicles by 11 per cent. Although the Government's investment record has been impressive—an increase in capital investment in trunk roads of about 60 per cent. since 1979, and 880 miles of new and improved motorway and other trunk roads completed—we recognise that congestion is a serious and expensive problem for British motorists and British business. We are in no doubt about that. Reducing congestion has always been one element of our road policy and, given the recent increases in congestion, we have recently undertaken a thorough review of the trunk road programme. We have concentrated particularly on schemes that will reduce congestion on the roads between cities and that can be

completed quickly. We shall announce the result of that review shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) will not, therefore, have to wait long to see what is proposed in the White Paper and whether it helps her constituency.
I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that one of the most important steps is to make better use of existing infrastructure. I am grateful to him and several of my other hon. Friends for their interesting proposal to have a red route scheme through London to speed traffic on its way.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gedling and for Nottingham, South were worried about the A453. We are considering making improvements to that road, which links the M1 to Nottingham, and I have noted their views carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling was also concerned about the Gedling bypass. He is aware that the scheme is the responsibility of Nottinghamshire county council as the highway authority. We encourage counties to improve their local road networks through transport supplementary grant, for which the Gedling bypass is a suitable candidate. Therefore, it is for the county to give it a higher priority so that it can be considered by the Government.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling and other hon. Members who urged us to get on with private finance that I am determined to increase the private sector's role in the provision of road infrastructure. The private sector has much to offer in terms of innovation, enterprise and management efficiency, and can make a real contribution to the provision of roads in this country. I am convinced that privately financed roads will soon begin to complement our public sector road network.
Such a policy has already started with developers being able to invest in improved access to their developments by contributing to local trunk road schemes. Since 1986, 50 agreements have been concluded, and 50 more are at an advanced stage of preparation. We want to go further. We are encouraged by the example of the Dartford-Thurrock bridge, which is being built in the private sector. We are encouraged to think that the second Severn bridge may be suitable for private sector development.
There could be much more. There are many ideas in the private sector about how private finance could be applied. My colleagues and I have held valuable discussions with the private sector and some firms have already come forward with interesting ideas. We have tried to answer their questions about the way in which we shall proceed. Only a few days ago, we were able to remove one obstacle, which many believed stood in the way of private finance, by announcing the retirement of the Ryrie rules. That means that there will not be a scheme-by-scheme reduction in the public road programme in respect of privately financed projects. That is a useful step forward which means that we are progressively cutting away the obstacles that stand in the way of, or have been perceived to stand in the way of, the private sector.
Some issues still need to be clarified, and the consultative document that we shall shortly publish will, I hope, help to do that. It will cover subjects such as shadow tolls, which the Government regard as a financial device, which is no more than disguised borrowing, and is unacceptable. It will also cover the issues raised by my


hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, such as exclusive rights to ideas for road schemes—what he called intellectual property.
Roads are unlike other commodities. Anyone can suggest a route, which may have been worked out in great detail or may be merely a line drawn on a map, but they cannot have exclusive rights to it. Where the Government support a scheme—for example, through hybrid legislation or procedures that require compulsory purchase—we must ensure that we can justify our choice of project by having a proper competition. Competition is an essential feature of a true market, and a factor which the Government have taken great steps to introduce into many areas. It brings with it higher quality and efficiency.
The key issue that we want to address in the Green Paper is the suitability of existing procedures to authorise privately financed roads. We are clear that our current procedures are unsuited to privately financed roads, whether financed by development gain or tolling. We are considering how they can be improved. All highways legislation is designed for conventional, untolled roads that are financed by the public sector. Tolling has to be authorised by statute on a case-by-case basis. Shortly, we intend to bring forward proposals for better procedures.
In a Betjemanesque attack on the horrors of Bethnal Green, which he believes should share the same fate as Slough, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) raised the subject of the difficulties of travelling on railways. He said that he was fed up with being told that we would receive jam tomorrow. However, I have some large lumps of "jam tomorrow" for him. In real terms, investment last year was the greatest since 1966. This year, investment is planned to be 25 per cent. higher again, the largest in real terms since 1962. Therefore, it is the largest in the history of the British Railways Board, and yet more is planned for the early 1990s. The pace of approvals of investment is also increasing. Since January, I have approved investment in a total of 423 new passenger coaches to add to the 2,372 that have been approved since 1983. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea referred to 50-year-old trains, giving a new meaning to the phrase, "The Age of the Train". He can be assured that the Government will look carefully and sympathetically at any investment case that is brought forward by British Rail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling takes a realistic attitude to the possible electrification of the midland main line. During the 1990s, British Rail will begin to assess the results of the east coast main line electrification, and consider whether there should be further major route electrification. Those results should be available for analysis before the rolling stock on the midland main line comes to the end of its useful life and decisions will have to be taken on major replacement. That will provide the ideal opportunity for British Rail to examine whether electrification would offer the best option for the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) raised many interesting questions about aviation, and in doing so he was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). I fully agree with the main thrust of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside that we must open up the market to provide better services at lower fares.
When he talked about airport policy, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside drew attention to the document CAP 548. He will understand that, as that is

a consultation document issued by the Civil Aviation Authority to help it to fulfil its commission from the Secretary of State to provide advice to him on United Kingdom airport capacity and traffic distribution, it would be wrong for me to become involved in arguments that might pre-empt the decisions that must be taken. However, I understand the urgency and importance of the questions that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre raised about air traffic control. He will know of the important practical measures that have already been taken. Indeed, he referred to a number of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside referred to the major development for the early 1990s—the phased introduction of the central control function at the London air traffic control centre, which will be completed by 1995. That new traffic management system will provide adequate capacity to handle Stansted at full, single runway capacity of 40 movements per hour, Luton at 16 movements per hour, and Heathrow and Gatwick at their runway capacities. Further system enhancements will also be introduced at the London ATC centre, the Manchester sub-centre and the Scottish and oceanic control centres.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside was worried about why such matters needed to take so long. He knows that they are complex systems and the senior management of the CAA has called in consultants for the specific purpose of conducting an independent review of the central control function. The consultants advised that the time scale was aggressive, but realistic. That was an independent point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre suggested that the national air traffic services should be hived off from the CAA. That suggestion was put forward by the Select Committee and, along with all its other suggestions, we shall consider it.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was concerned about the development of Manchester airport, which I well understand. He will be aware of the need to make fair agreements between different countries and of the tremendous advances that Manchester airport has made, with the £300 million of capital investment that has been made in local authority airports since the Government came to office. We are keen to allow additional opportunities for new United States airlines to operate into Manchester, but it is important to secure balancing opportunities for United Kingdom airlines into the United States.
The debate has offered us a good opportunity to discuss transport policy. The motion that we have been discussing was superbly drafted, and it calls attention to a decade of achievement in transport by the Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling not only for that but for the opportunity he has given the House—especially to my hon. Friends—to offer a series of interesting ideas on transport topics.
The future will require a continuation of Government investment in road, rail and air traffic control, and our economic success makes that possible. But our future will also require further liberalisation and privatisation, and I am grateful to all my hon. Friends for the vigorous support that they have given those policies today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on the increase in spending on roads by 57 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and on rail by over 75 per cent. over the last five


years; notes the substantial and continuing pressure by the public for further measures to be taken up to and after 1992 to relieve road congestion; further notes that additional significant increases in public spending of 25 per cent. on roads and nearly 50 per cent. on rail are planned up to 1992; applauds the encouragement being given to the private sector to develop a role in our roads programme; believes that the privatization of British Rail would improve the service for the customer in the years beyond 1992; notes the improvement in the quality and quantity of bus services following de-regulation, and the privatisation of the National Bus Company; believes that there is a need to take further in the years up to 1992 and beyond the steps already taken by the Secretary of State for Transport in liberalising air fares and routes in the interests of the travelling public; congratulates the Secretary of State for Transport on the steps he personally has taken to promote public discussion of radical as well as conventional solutions to these problems; and urges the Government to continue its efforts to identify ways of mitigating and resolving these challenges in the years up to 1992 and beyond, the cost of which can now be supported because of the success of this Government's economic policies.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I must announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the blocking motion or the instructions.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is not able to move the Second Reading of this Bill, but I am delighted to do so on his behalf and on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London. I speak wearing three hats on this matter—as one who went to the City of London school, as a freeman, and as a member of the Guild of Freemen of the City of London. I greatly admire what the corporation does for the inhabitants of London. It spends vast sums on London and it deserves to be praised. I am delighted that it is now looking after Hampstead heath and I am sure that it will do so extremely efficiently.
Nothing in the Bill could be called controversial in a party-political sense, although it may well prove controversial across party lines. I shall try first to explain the three parts into which it falls and then, with permission, respond at the end to points on which clarification may be needed. If I have to be away from my place from time to time I hope that my hon. Friends will understand, should any points require further elucidation.
I am sure that hon. Members have read the Bill in great detail and seen that it falls into three sections. Clauses 4 to 8 deal with the need to build the Hackney to the M11 link road. As clause 7 makes clear, the Department of Transport will pay the costs of this part of the Bill, and it must explain the reasoning behind these clauses, which the City has had to include in the Bill. I can take no responsibility for the views of the Department of Transport. The corporation has been merely a vehicle for this part of the Bill.
The background is as follows. This link was first announced in 1979 and was the subject of two public inquiries, in 1983 and 1987, as a result of which the route was fixed. Some Epping forest land has been taken around the Green Man roundabout, and some land near by at George Green will also be affected. The City argued at the 1983 inquiry—by City, I mean the conservators of the forest—that the road at these spots should be in tunnel to protect the environment of the forest, and that happy solution was agreed.
I propose to use measurements with which we are familiar. Six and a quarter acres of forest land will be permanently acquired by the Department of Transport; approximately another half an acre will be subject to the right of access, with seven acres being used during the construction time. These latter 7·5 or 8 acres will be restored and returned to forest use after the completion of the road, and the tunnel tops will be grassed over. The cost of all that will fall on the Department of Transport.
The Department has agreed to add 20 acres of land to the forest adjacent to Wanstead park, representing a net gain of permanent forest land of more than 13 acres. This land will be properly prepared for forest use by the


Department. In passing, I may add that those who talk about the speed of road building should note that more than a decade has passed since this idea was first suggested, and not a piece of tarmacadam is yet in place.
During and after construction special access will be provided at the new roundabout for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. Horse riders play an important part in the background to this Bill. Access will be provided even during the construction period, and when it is over there will be proper, permanent access for these three groups.
The second part of the Bill, clauses 9 and 10, is about horse riding in the forest and has aroused much local interest. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) have been much interested and involved, as was my late friend and colleague Sir John Biggs-Davison. This part has given rise to much detailed discussion. Those who have visited the forest in recent years as I have know that it is used a great deal by horse riders and riding schools. The impact of horse riding was last reviewed about 20 years ago, and the City has been concerned about the implications for the ecology of the forest and for other users, as the area is used much more by riders now.
The City has had a duty since 1878 to maintain the forest for the enjoyment of the public, and to protect it. Most of the forest is due to be designated as a site of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Because of that, and because of the increased riding use, a working party was set up and there was a review in 1988. The group that undertook the review visited all parts of the forest and consulted widely.
Three major problems were identified. First, a minority of inconsiderate riders were causing damage to others and to the forest and generally showed a lack of concern for the local ecology and environment. Secondly, the intensification of riding has caused adverse ground conditions. That has caused ecological damage and is affecting the pleasure derived by others who use the forest. The increase in riding is churning up parts of the forest and making it less pleasant for walkers. Thirdly, there is the increased cost of trying to keep the rides in acceptable condition.
During the past 15 or 20 years the City has spent about £1 million on the provision and maintenance of rides. The intensification of riding means that substantially more has to be spent on maintenance, additional provision and long-term control. Unless the Bill is enacted the riders will make no contribution to the upkeep, preservation and restoration of the forest. I shall return to those matters.
About two months ago I received a letter from an organisation called the "Friends of Epping Forest". That organisation makes clear that there is a large volume of support for the City in its desire to regulate horse riding in the forest and to make reasonable charges to riders. The honorary secretary, Mrs. Bitten, says in the letter that the organisation sent out petition forms on 8 February to be returned by 28 February. At the date of her letter there were already 3,500 signatures.

Mr. Steve Norris: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that there are now more than 5,000 signatures on that petition, which I have taken charge of this very evening.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that update. It shows that those who use the forest accept that the City has been doing its best to look after the interests of all the people who use it.
The review that I mentioned has resulted in two main proposals. The first is that powers must be made available to control the irresponsible and thoughtless activities of a minority. I stress "minority" because the overwhelming bulk of riders are not irresponsible and accept the logic of what the City is suggesting. Secondly, the riders will have to make some contribution, and the money will be specifically ploughed back into facilities, thus enabling the rides to be maintained, added to and improved. The City has made clear that the contributions will not be spent on the general upkeep of the forest, but will be specifically applied to the riding areas.
The concept of contribution and registration is not new. It is already operated elsewhere and was recommended as long ago as 1969 by the Eastern sports council to the then Minister responsible for sport, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). Power to restrict rides is in the 1971 Act. At that time the proposal to register and to charge was deferred until about 20 miles of surfaced rides were nearing completion. Now those 20 miles are virtually ready for use.
I stress that all the amenity and conservation groups that were consulted support the proposals. There were two objections and both were from riding associations. The objections were mainly that riders should make no contribution. That is a narrow way of looking at things because riders are specialised users of the forest and other specialised users, such as people who fish or people who play football or golf, make a contribution. Therefore, the objection by the riders is impossible to sustain on any logical basis.
The third part of the Bill is much more domestic. It deals with pedestrian safety, emergency access, litter and school staff appointments. I should like to deal with those matters and it might be useful for the House to know some of the background and the reasoning for this part of the Bill. Clause 17 will prohibit pedestrians from using the Blackfriars underpass and the part of Upper Thames street which is in the tunnel. I do not know how many Members have tried to walk through that underpass, but I hope that any who have had heavy life insurance because the underpass is narrow and dangerous and no pedestrian should try to go through it. Quite rightly, the City is saying that because there is no suitable footway provision in the tunnels and the presence of pedestrians is likely to give rise to hazards affecting them and other road users. However, there are perfectly easy and acceptable alternative ways for pedestrians.
Clause 12 allows the corporation temporarily to close walkways for repair or maintenance and to set opening times generally. At the moment the right to use walkways, which is conferred by existing legislation, is confined, strangely enough, to pedestrians. Understandably, the City thinks that it would be helpful if provision for access by emergency services vehicles could be permitted. Present legislation does not permit that but clause 12 of the Bill would make it possible.
Earlier I spoke about the Green Man roundabout and George Green. That shows how green we all are. In a green world we must prevent the dropping of litter and clause 13 tries to tidy up that aspect of legislation. I am sure that hon. Members will know that the practice of giving away


magazines and other publicity material is widespread throughout London and certainly in the City. The material is frequently given out near Underground stations, especially during the morning rush hour. As most of us have observed from time to time, the unused material is left unattended in piles on the pavements or elsewhere for passers by to pick up. If it is windy or if someone kicks the pile of material the pieces of paper are scattered. If they are scattered so as to conceal a step tread the result could be highly dangerous. The City wants permission to remove this material when it is deposited in public places adjacent to the highway, such as at street entrances to railway stations and the Underground. Again, that would be accepted as practical and sensible.
Clause 15 makes amendments to the traffic legislation that governs roads in the new Billingsgate market, and clause 16 does the same to permit byelaw-making powers to deal with house boats.
As an old citizen, perhaps I should comment in great detail on clause 17, which makes provision for the staff appointments at the City of London school. In the time that I was there, most of us would have welcomed the chance of having a say in the appointment or removal of certain masters, but times have changed and the City wants to modernise the process. What is suggested in the Bill is practical and, I think, acceptable to any modern thinking organisation.
I hope that that explanation will satisfy those who wish to be satisfied, and will not fuel the fires of those who do not. Legislation affecting the City of London is always a great gamble. Some will use it as a vehicle for the most vehement attack on the City. Others will use it as an opportunity to say, "Bring back the GLC." Others, like the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), will use it as a genuine reason for making a particular point that is worrying them in their constituency and to advance arguments to which I am sure the House will wish to listen. I believe that the Bill is a good thing, as Sellar and Yeatman would say.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) for his comments about me. However, the Bill steals Leyton's forest land, and gives it no proper replacement. That is the nub of the matter and that is why I object to the Bill and so have tabled a blocking motion. My constituency is the only one to be adversely affected by the Bill. Nobody would expect a Member of Parliament worth his or her salt to put up with that state of affairs, and I will not. I shall speak in detail about the iniquity of the Bill and of the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who is forcing the Bill through and robbing Leyton of its land.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Whose constituents will gain most by the new road? From where in his constituency does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the replacement land should come?

Mr. Cohen: I shall deal with that second aspect in great detail. I have already put that information to the agents, Sherwood and Company, who said when they looked at it, "Oh, crikey! What you want is peanuts, Mr. Cohen, but

we'll just have to check with the Department of Transport." They phoned the Department of Transport, which said, "No deal." It ill behoves the Minister to talk about replacements and negotiated land for the forest land taken from my constituency when his Department blocked the suggestion for replacement land.
As to the first point about who benefits from the road, I shall also come to that. My constituents are beginning to wonder, because of the Government's immense meanness in refusing to put nearly all of the road into cut and cover. They are prepared to put tunnels all over the place for their Tory friends but not in an urban area like Leyton which needs them. I will read to the Minister what I said in the public inquiry, which welcomed the road but argued that it needed environmental benefits, which the Department of Transport has sabotaged. My constituents, and even the local council now, are wondering whether the road is worthwhile without those benefits, because it will carve across Leyton and Leytonstone and be a disbenefit overall, especially as it will be there for 100 years or more.
I have tabled a motion suggesting that the Bill should be read a Second time not today but in six months. My real wish is that it will never be given a Second Reading, or at least not until Leyton gets reasonable compensation and a reasonable deal. I asked for what the agents described as peanuts, but the Minister was too mean to provide it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is ill, and I am sure that the House will wish him a speedy recovery. He sends his apologies for not being here to speak about his instruction, which reads:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they satisfy themselves that none of the provisions contained in the Bill are in conflict with the draft Strategic Guidance for London issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
My hon. Friend also wants to draw attention to the important environmental aspects over which the Department of Transport is riding roughshod, particularly in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West takes it as an important principle that urban areas should have a good environment. In his constituency and my neighbouring constituency he wants to see put into effect the proper environmental guidelines and improvements that the Government claim to be supporting. However, the Minister for Roads and Traffic is ignoring them by forcing through this proposal, which is a scandal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) also sends his apologies. Although he knew that his blocking motion would not be selected, he would have been here, but he has had to go to an important meeting at the Foreign Office to talk about Kurdish refugees, many of whom are coming into his constituency. Therefore, he sends his apologies. His instruction reads:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill so to amend Clause 11 as to provide for equivalent space elsewhere in Upper Thames Street to compensate for the additional area which will be closed to the movement of pedestrians in order to facilitate access to buildings on the route.
Again, he is looking for compensation for his constituency and other parts of London. Perhaps I should not say this as he is not here, but his constituency is not as badly affected as mine. Leyton is being robbed of forest land by the Minister. He is stealing forest land in a built-up urban area without replacing it. I note the point made by my hon.


Friend, and I hope that the Committee will pick up his point. However, I shall concentrate on what is happening in Leyton.
A cartoon appeared in the weekend press—in The Guardian—that amused me. Perhaps I should not say that because Steve Bell amuses me quite often with some of his sharp cartoons. In this instance he summed up the Government's environment policy in his usual caustic manner. He showed the Secretary of State for the Environment lazing in a deckchair. He was talking about fast golf—yes—and Socialism—no. Then he outlined his environment policy. In effect, he said, "We stop the working class from voting, breathing, eating and farting. Next, we nuke ourselves up to the eyeballs. Next, we invest in more global weaponry." That is about right for the Government's environment policy. After that, the Secretary of State, through Steve Bell, said, "Then we retire to Gloucestershire to build major extensions to the family seat."
That is the Government's environment policy in a nutshell when it comes to working people. That is why the Minister for Public Transport does not give a fart for forest land in Leyton. That is the truth of the matter. Steve Bell's cartoon summed up the Government's attitude extremely well. A good environment is all right for Ministers, but they do not care about the environment for urban areas such as Leyton.
In his opening remarks the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate described the City of London as the vehicle for the Department of Transport, and that is exactly what it is. This is an appalling abuse of the private Bill procedure. A private Bill is supposed to be exactly that—private. That means that the Bill is something that is wanted, for example, by the City of London, or by the people of Leyton. I can tell the Minister that the people of Leyton did not want him to steal their forest land without proper replacement. We are witnessing an abuse of the private Bill procedure. In reality, we are dealing with a Government measure.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, "This is a vehicle for the Department of Transport." Those were his words. That being so, the Department should have come to the House with its own Bill. It should have introduced a Bill entitled, "The Stealing of Land from Leyton Without Proper Replacement Bill". The City of London should not have been used as a pawn.
I tried to negotiate with the City of London. The compensation that I wanted was described by the agents, Sherwood, as peanuts. That being so, I thought that the City of London would settle quickly. I received a telephone call and I was told that the Department had in turn been telephoned. What interest does the Department have in the matter when this measure, apparently, is a private Bill? I was told, "We have phoned the Department and it says, `No deal."' This is an abuse of the private Bill procedure.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I wish to make it clear that I said that this part of the Bill was a vehicle because the City has legislative responsibility for the forest. Therefore, if there is to be any change, the matter has to come through Parliament in this way. I have been assured— I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this from me—that at no stage did Sherwood use the word "peanuts". I am told that

that is the word of the hon. Gentleman, and it is one that I understand. Sherwood's representatives are emphatic that they did not use the word.

Mr. Cohen: That is a lie. I am not calling the hon. Gentleman a liar, but what he has said is an untruth. I was present at the meeting on the Terrace. The agent is sitting outside the Chamber. Obviously, someone who is not a Member of this place cannot sit in the Chamber. When she considered the compensation for which I was asking, she said, "This is peanuts."
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate for intervening in my speech. It was interesting because I was not sure whether the City of London was neglecting the people of Leyton, whether it had been called upon by the Department of Transport to do the dirty work, or whether it was a bit of both. I was leaning to the view that it was doing the dirty work for the Department in stealing forest land from the people of Leyton without paying compensation. However, it may be that it is acting off its own bat. If that is so, the people of Leyton face an appalling sell-out.
As I have said, the Bill is a Government measure. At least, that can be said of the provisions within it to which I am referring. I accept that other parts of the Bill are the City of London's responsibilities. When it comes to forest land, the motivation lies with the Department of Transport. It is prepared to take forest land from Leyton without providing proper compensation.
We are being presented with a fait accompli. The conservators were put over a barrel by the Department of Transport. If the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate is saying that the City of London gladly colluded in the process of robbing Leyton of forest land without providing proper compensation, that will be remembered by the people of Leyton. If that is so, it is a scathing indictment of the City of London.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate has told us that City of London Bills are always a gamble. Who is he kidding? They are never a gamble. There are always 100 or more Conservative Members who are prepared to crawl out of the woodwork for the City of London. Ministers crawl out of the woodwork when these Bills come before the House. A City of London Bill has never been defeated in this place since way back in the 1800s. That is because Conservative Members are in the pocket of the City. Perhaps they will get a few good dinners at the Guildhall. They do not mind robbing the people of Leyton of their forest land without providing proper compensation. They do not give a toss about that. There is no gamble. We know that 100 Conservative Members, or more, will roll up to vote at the end of the debate. That will not be the end of the matter, however, because the argument will continue.
The statement that was issued on behalf of the promoters in support of the Bill's Second Reading was shameful. If statements and advertisements had to be honest and truthful, the statement would fail those criteria. It is a statement of deception and lies. It seems that the lies will be compounded if the agent says now that she did not say that the compensation that I was seeking was peanuts.
I shall run through parts of the statement. Initially, it states:
The Bill is promoted by the Corporation of London for the principal purpose of authorising the Corporation as Conservators of Epping Forest to grant to the Secretary of


State for Transport the land, and the rights in land, that he requires for the construction of a part of the Hackney to M11 link road authorised under the Highways Act 1980.
That is how the statement starts. It is a sell-out by the City of London and the conservators in that respect. The Bill does not provide compensation for the people of Leyton for the forest land that the Minister is stealing. It is no excuse to quote the Secretary of State's powers to acquire land for the Hackney Wick to M11 link in not providing replacement land to the benefit of people living in Leyton and in Leytonstone. The conservators have sold out in respect of their role to conserve an urban area such as Leyton, which is scandalous.
The statement continues:
The Bill would authorise the Conservators of Epping Forest to grant to the Secretary of State out of the open wasteland of the forest the freehold interest in some 27,500 square metres—approximately 6·8 acres—rights to construct and maintain foundations in some 2,500 square metres—approximately 0·62 acres—and rights of temporary occupation for the construction of the roadworks in some 28,500 square metres—approximately 7 acres. The authorisation is subject to the acquisitions of the Secretary of State using the usual statutory powers for compulsory purchase.
The Secretary of State will not use those same powers to acquire compensation land. He will not use them to rehouse the homeless in my constituency, who are suffering as a result of the proposal.
The figures of the amount of land that is being taken are interesting. It can be seen that a large area of land will be used, but the statement does not reveal anything like the full picture as to the amount of land that is being nicked—being stolen—for the roundabout. We do not mind the roundabout, provided that land is given in its place as a recompense for the land that is stolen.
Item 4 on page 2 of the statement says:
By the Epping Forest Act 1878 the Corporation as conservators of Epping Forest were charged with the duty of preserving as far as possible the natural aspect of the forest.
The same should apply to Leyton. The statement continues:
By Section 7 of that Act they are required to keep the forest unenclosed and unbuilt on as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public and to resist all encroachments on the forest.
The same should apply to Leyton, but the conservators have failed to meet their responsibilities to the people of Leyton as to the forest's natural aspect. The conservators say, "They are only Leyton people. They do not matter that much." That is the conservators' attitude, which echoes that of the Minister for Roads and Traffic. The conservators' attitude is, "The Leyton people can lose their forest land and not receive any compensation."
The conservators have failed over a long period to upgrade the forest for the people of Leyton and Leytonstone, particularly in the Whipps Cross and Hellow Pond area. One of the conditions that I put to Sherwoods, which were described as being "peanuts" until the Department put the boot in, was about upgrading the forest land. It was the conservators' job to do that in any case. They should have upgraded the land over the past 100 years, but they neglected that responsibility, which makes me very angry. That is another reason why the statement is nonsense and represents an abrogation by the conservators of their responsibilities.
Item 6 concerns itself with the chosen route doing the least damage to the forest's natural aspect. The conservators have not done that part of their job particularly well either. Nevertheless, item 6 states:
It was for this reason that the Conservators argued for the new road to be put in covered cuttings, as previously described, at the Green Man roundabout and George Green.
At the last inquiry into the roundabout, Wanstead was given more covered cuttings, but Leyton got none because of the Government's meanness and vindictiveness, saying, "The people of Leyton don't matter. They don't need forest land." The conservators have not tried very hard to secure covered land in Leyton. Their efforts were tokenism in the extreme and reveal another aspect of their neglect.
Item 7 states:
The area of land to be given in exchange for the forest land required for construction purposes is to be equally advantageous to the public and to the commoners as the forest land for which it is substituted.
That is a straight lie. The forest will be substituted by scrubby old sewage land in Wanstead, two and a half miles away. That land cannot in any way be described as "equally advantageous", not in Leyton it ain't. It will not do. Item 7 has the cheek to continue:
This addition will provide a substantial amenity for local people.
What a nerve. It will not do so, and that is yet another straight lie, unless one expects the people of Leyton to walk two and a half miles from the Green Man roundabout and risk getting run over on the way. That is one of the biggest stretches of road there is. That will not represent any kind of amenity for the people of Leyton.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to depart from the truth. The "scrubby old sewage land" to which he refers will be brought up to the standard of the forest by the Department of Transport. There is no question of there being "scrubby old sewage land."

Mr. Cohen: What a big deal for the people of Leyton. They will be provided with substitute land two and a half miles away along a busy motorway, which will not really be of any benefit to them. I still say that it will be scrubby old sewage land. Our experience of Redbridge council showed that it was only too keen to build on land that had toxic waste under it, causing medical problems for the people who subsequently lived there. Who is to say that such a thing will not occur again in respect of the replacement land?
The people of Leyton want open spaces, forest land and parks, yet the Minister is stealing Leyton's forest land. The Government, using the vehicle provided by the Bill, are manipulating the City of London and the conservators, and are stealing Leyton's forest land without replacing it properly. That is the reality of the situation. If the Department of Transport's meanness is anything to go by, that scrubby old sewage land will not be brought up to a proper standard. The Department will spend the barest minimum, unless the other policy comes into play so that, because it is a Tory area, it can have what resources it likes while Labour areas have their forest land stolen from them. If that is the case, we have a Minister whose green and environmental policies are perverse. That is something that the people of Leyton will understand very well.
The Government are supposed to be environmentally minded. The Prime Minister has made a statement saying in effect that, having broken all the pollution laws under


the sun for years on end, we are green now. I heard the Minister proclaim that as well on "Any Questions". He must think that people in this country are green. He clearly thinks that the people of Leyton are if he imagines that they will allow their forest land to be stolen without their Member of Parliament protesting.
The Government are not green at all. They have broken more Common Market standards and laws on pollution than any other Government in the EEC. They are the party of law and order—except when it comes to polluting and despoiling our environment. They allow the pollution of beaches up and down the country, and do not provide clean water. They are not green but motorway grey: they are stealing Leyton's forest land for motorway tarmac.
Leyton is a heavily built-up urban area, with houses set close together and not much green space. There is not nearly enough park and forest land. The people who must live in the area have received no help from the Government, and what little green space is available around the perimeters is coming under assault from all directions. The local authority, seeking to maintain its parks, has been savaged by cuts in rate support and capital grants. Kiddies are being hurt in the playground when they fall on to tarmac. The Government have not provided the money for the council to provide safe equipment in the first place, or safe landing facilities in the second.
The parks are becoming devastated and bare. There is more and more wasteland. I am not complaining about the council's employees, who do a wonderful job, but they are increasingly stretched. Jobs, too, have been savaged by the cuts in rate support grant. Those people are working hard just to preserve an amenity—the breath of fresh air that is vital in a heavily built-up area where juggernauts go past pumping out their diesel poison.
As the central London road assessment studies make clear, the Bill is part of a package that puts Walthamstow and Leyton marshes seriously at risk. On 7 April the Yellow Advertiser, a local paper, featured a photograph of Lea Valley park with its symbol. It is a bit like a nuclear symbol, but at least it means fresh air in this instance. Lea Valley park has not done a great deal for my authority, considering the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money that has gone into it; there is an ice rink, but that is about it. In the past it has backed schemes to dig up the marshes for the gravel and to try to make a profit out of it.
The paper headlines its article
Natural beauty road planners' target … concrete future for marsh area?
There is a beautiful picture of the marshes. You are welcome to come and walk over those marshes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you would enjoy it enormously; it is a wonderful piece of land.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: rose—

Mr. Cohen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to confirm that it is a wonderful amenity, and that he does not want roads to be built over it.

Mr. Summerson: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned a part of my constituency, I feel that I must rise to agree entirely with what he has said. The Walthamstow marshes are indeed an ancient part of our heritage, going back 1,000 or 2,000 years.
I saw the article that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to put it on record that if any such scheme ever attempted to cover

Leyton and Walthamstow marshes with concrete in the way that he has described I would fight it to the limit, and I am sure that my constituents would simply not permit it.

Mr. Cohen: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that they would not permit it. He is a relative newcomer to Waltham forest, but when I was on the local council the Conservatives on the council voted for a proposal to dig out the gravel from Walthamstow and Leyton marshes. It was only the Labour group that stopped it from going ahead, despite tremendous pressure from the Conservatives, the Government and the big business interests who wanted the gravel. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's change of heart, but I think that he will have to go back and discuss the matter with his colleagues, and try to persuade them to change their views.

Mr. Summerson: The hon. Gentleman must not impute to me views that I simply have not expressed. I do not know what any particular council of any particular political complexion did in the years before I was elected; I am speaking for myself. As a Conservative Member of Parliament, I would fight such a proposal.

Mr. Cohen: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's statement. I am merely giving him a bit of the history. I must point out to him that his hon. Friend the Minister is a very mean-minded man when it comes to the Leyton people's forest. He is stealing it from them and refusing to give it back, and he can exert a fantastic amount of pressure.
The hon. Gentleman has not been all that good at fulfilling his pledges in the past. I remember that about a year ago he signed a motion opposing charges for eye tests, and pledged that he would fight them. When it came to the vote, however, he went through the Lobby with the Government, and the eye charges were imposed. While I welcome his promise to oppose the concreting of this land, I wonder how much faith can be put in it. I know that the hon. Gentleman is speaking honestly now, but when the pressure is on and the Government Whips are out, will he do the same as before?
Let me quote from the article in the Yellow Advertiser, which deals with the assault on the green land of Leyton and Leytonstone and the surrounding areas, and the theft of the fresh air and forest land that belong to the local people. It says:
Concrete future for marsh area. Outline proposals to ease London's traffic congestion include the idea of ploughing a major road straight through Walthamstow marsh.
It has also been referred to as Leyton marsh. Leyton marsh runs into Walthamstow marsh. Both marshes are affected by the plans. The article continues:
In the past, the boggy nature of the land has been its best defence against any sort of development but now private consultants, hired by the Department of Transport, have pinpointed the Lea Valley as one of a number of options for new roads. Other neighbouring open spaces that would disappear under concrete if the Lea Valley option is ever taken up are the Warwick reservoir and the Essex filter beds.
Those are prime and important areas of land in the area. The article continues:
Marie Fallon, conservation officer with Waltham Forest council, said: 'It is at very early stages and the consultants have not clarified what they mean by the proposals."'
That is why this is a most dangerous time. We must stamp on the proposal, or attempt to do so. The Minister will not get away with this without finding that he has an enormous fight on his hands. The article then says:


However, the London ecology committee, which includes councillors from 23 boroughs, has been so alarmed that it has asked for a meeting with roads Minister Peter Bottomley.
I bet they got scant joy from him. He is only too keen to take forest land from the people of Leyton and, presumably, from people elsewhere for his pet grey motorway projects. He is a very grey Minister. He would do that without providing any proper replacement for what he takes away. The article goes on to say:
Waltham Forest committee member, Councillor Eric Sizer, said, 'When roads are being considered it is often thought easier to push them through open spaces where opposition is thought to be muted. We will stress to the Minister that we regret that so many of the options affect significant sites of value for nature conservation and other much loved open spaces.`
I echo Councillor Sizer's comments.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman may be able to remind us whether that councillor was with us when the hon. Gentleman and I went down the high street on the trunk road to within about 150 yards of the Green Man roundabout. I seem to remember being with the hon. Gentleman for about an hour and a half—or was it two hours? We started near Leytonstone station; we walked up towards the Green Man. I introduced the hon. Gentleman to a number of his constituents, many of whom recognised him and paid tribute to his work. We spent a long time together, but I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman, or one of his constituents, or one of his councillors mentioning one word of this. However, I do remember the hon. Gentleman discussing with me whether the Hackney to M11 link would provide the kind of environment improvement, the casualty reduction and the improvement in life required in his constituency.
It seems to me that since that time, when the hon. Gentleman was walking politely around with me, he has discovered an awful lot of things that he might have tried to share with me before this evening. He is talking in general rather than in specific terms. I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity when we were within 150 m of the roundabout—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was at school when metres were taught rather than yards—to speak to me about one of the main matters that worries him.

Mr. Cohen: What a distortion that was, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At that meeting the chief executive, as well as myself and others, including the local press, said, "Could we speak about the M11 link and the tunnelling options?" The Minister replied, "I'm not here to speak about that."

Mr. Bottomley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cohen: He put a block on it in the first two minutes. The press were all around him; so were the councillors, the chief executive and the officers. They said, "Could we have a word with you about the tunnel?" The Minister said, "I'm not here to speak about that. I'm here to plant a tree and to walk up and down the road." That is what he said. His statement was a distortion of what happened.
I intend to deal with two specific details. I am just setting the general picture of the Government taking our forest land—our green, open space land—and not giving proper compensation for it. The Minister intervened at that point because he did not want to discuss the effect of the London assessment studies on this beautiful area of

land in Leyton and Walthamstow. He had the opportunity when he rose to his feet to say, "In no way will any road touch that beautiful piece of land, those marshes." I invite him to say that.

Mr. Bottomley: rose—

Mr. Cohen: Is the Minister going to say that?

Mr. Bottomley: I do not want to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or that of the House, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get rather more support from this side of the House in an effort to keep his speech going than he is getting from his own side. Apart from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman's speech is being heard not only in total silence by his own side but also in the total absence of his hon. Friends. He makes sweeping accusations that it would be better and more courteous for the House to ignore.
This is one of the hon. Gentleman's typical speeches. It might be better if he turned to specific details that the House might wish to consider at this stage. There are many points that other hon. Members may wish to raise. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for about three quarters of an hour without making any specific points. It may be that he has not got many specific things to say, but that will be for the House and for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to judge.

Mr. Cohen: I have plenty of specific things to say. The Bill affects my constituency. I said at the beginning of my speech that it is being savaged by the Minister who is stealing our forest land. The land is in no other Member's constituency, so how can I expect other hon. Members, who are very busy, to come here? I have not asked them to do so. The Minister thinks that he can pick on one constituency, mine, and get away with it, but he has got another think coming to him.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: Of course my hon. Friend knows—but perhaps the Minister would like to know, too—that the London group of Labour Members of Parliament supports what he is doing this evening. We have absolute confidence in our hon. Friend. Other hon. Members in the London group of Labour Members of Parliament do not need to speak on the subject, because no one can speak more eloquently, provide us with more information and best serve the House than my hon. Friend.

Mr. Cohen: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cohen: I shall gladly give way to the Minister. I hope that he will address this point of the central London assessment study and give a pledge that not an inch of his proposed roads will touch the Walthamstow and Leyton marshes.

Mr. Bottomley: I would not dream of accepting that invitation. That would be out of order and beyond the scope of the Bill.
I rose to intervene because I have just remembered that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport met the London group of Labour Members of Parliament a short time ago. I think that the hon. Gentleman was at that meeting. I hope that he will confirm that he was there.


I do not think that he raised that issue with my right hon. Friend. Again it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is not getting down to the specifics, that he has not taken advantage of previous opportunities to raise these issues and that for some reason he may be trying to ensure that the House forgets why he rose to speak in the first place. Other hon. Members remember what we are here for. We are not sure that the hon. Gentleman remembers what he is here for.

Mr. Cohen: The Minister's tactics are to try to divert hon. Members from considering the specifics, but he will not waylay me in that way. I had the date of the meeting with the London group of Labour Members of Parliament in my diary, but the Secretary of State for Transport cancelled the meeting at the very last minute. He rearranged it at the very last minute, too, by which time I had made other appointments. I shall give the Minister details of those other appointments, if he wants them.

Mr. Bottomley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cohen: Of course he does not want the details, but that is typical of the way that this Government behaves. It will be noted by everybody when they read the report of this debate in Hansard that the Minister refused to give any commitment or any sort of pledge that the central London assessment study will not lead to concrete motorway grey going all over the beautiful Walthamstow and Leytonstone marshes. Local people have been warned of his proposals. That is part of the Bill. It is one of the assaults on the green belt and open spaces that the Government are making on the people of Leyton and Leytonstone. They are stealing the forest land from the local people.
I wish to quote a letter from councillor John Plant—an appropriate name—the chairman of the London ecology committee. He said:
You will be aware of the London traffic assessment studies which are currently under way and are due to report to the Minister for Roads and Traffic in May this year. The London Ecology Committee, which has all-party representation from 23 London boroughs, is very concerned at the effects that many of the options may have on London's open spaces and semi-natural environment.
The Minister is using Leyton as a guinea pig in taking away our forest land. It is his starting point; it will spread throughout London's open spaces and its natural and semi-natural environment. Mr. Plant continued:
These are all places which are vital for the wellbeing of Londoners and give them some relief from the built-up areas where they live and work.
That is exactly the point that I made earlier. We are discussing the very air in which people in urban areas have to live. Mr. Plant said:
In your constituency the enclosed map indicates the nature of the options, the most significant open spaces of nature conservation which could be affected, including the Essex filter beds site in the Lea Valley. That is part of a complex identification of metropolitan importance by my Committee as being under threat from the Government. An all-party delegation of the Committee, which included representatives of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, has asked for a meeting with the Minister. Your support would be invaluable.
Needless to say, I gave my support. Here is a threat to Leyton's green and open space.
Water privatisation is another threat. It will have a terrible effect on green land, some of which is designated as sites of special scientific interest. The marshes in my area could be at risk. The Government think that ruins such as

the ancient Rose theatre are not worth preserving. They also think that sites of special scientific interest, where rare flora and fauna exist, are irrelevant and not worth saving when put against big business and the people who speculate to make millions out of assets that rightly belong to the people.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend told me about this Bill only the other day, and explained that there were double standards. He has fully demonstrated that in his remarks. Not long ago constituents from Kent massed outside the House, together with the Mujahideen of Kent—the ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The Government found £500 million to accommodate their wishes—not that that will satisfy all of them. When the Minister received representations from my hon. Friend's constituents, he turned a deaf ear to them. Is that what my hon. Friend is explaining to the House?

Mr. Cohen: There are not only double standards but hypocrisy in this matter. The £500 million for the Channel tunnel is in addition to the money that the Government are already pumping into Kent to ensure that most of the route is below ground so as not to disturb a few villages. The M11 link in Leyton runs past a densely populated area, but the Minister refused to provide so much as an extra penny so that it could be tunnelled. His insistence that the road should run above ground has carved Leyton and Leytonstone in half. Those are the sorts of double standards to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly referred.
Water privatisation will be a charter for the speculators, who will sell sites of special scientific interest, including the Leyton marshes. It is an assault on our green and open spaces. They are being given to the land speculators instead of being kept for the people of Leyton. In fact, Leyton should have had a great deal more open space. There was once a project for the M11 to be tunnelled along the whole of its route, with a linear park along the top.

Mr. Skinner: What is a linear park?

Mr. Cohen: The M11 would have been underground, so there would have been space on top of the tunnel. It was a wonderfully inventive scheme thought up by two brilliant engineers—the scheme is called "Lister/Goldsmith" after them—which would have provided a park along the length of the M11. That would have meant an enormous improvement to the environment of Leyton. It would have been a wonderful benefit to such a densely built-up area. The project was both feasible and sensible, but the Department of Transport put the boot in it. The Department allowed it in other areas such as Hatfield and, of course, it allowed it in Tory areas. Leyton was savaged by the Tories at the Department of Transport, aided and abetted by their friends at the Department of the Environment. That is now being compounded by this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was not present at the beginning of my speech, so I must explain to him that under the Bill the Government are stealing the forest land of Leyton. This attack on the green and open spaces of Leyton has made me very angry.

Mr. Skinner: We are supposed to be living in a green political age, with the Prime Minister masquerading as a green veteran in an anorak and sandals and eating brown rice. Yet the Government intend to rip out the forests—


what few there are—in Leyton. They are trying to kid the British people that they have suddenly latched on to environmental questions, yet they do not care tuppence about the environment when it comes to lining the pockets of speculators in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We have already covered that ground in general terms. We cannot recapitulate for the benefit of an hon. Member who was not present at the beginning of the debate.

Mr. Cohen: I should not wish to repeat—

Mr. Skinner: I was here before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to resume his speech.

Mr. Cohen: Although I would not wish to repeat my earlier remarks, I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was right to say that the Prime Minister is masquerading. The reality is at issue, and the reality is that the right hon. Lady is stealing forest land from the people of Leyton and Leytonstone. The people have already been robbed of the proposed linear park, and my heart bleeds because we were denied it. It would have provided a wonderful environment for local people and their kids. We were robbed of it by a pernicious, vicious and anti-green Government who are now compounding their actions.
The so-called replacement land is a joke. I have here a letter from the director of the development office at Waltham Forest council, which explains what the replacement land is about. He wrote that the Department of Transport
is to replace the forest land lost at the Green Man with land at Wanstead. The new land at Wanstead comprises two sites owned by the Thames Water Authority which were formerly part of the Wanstead Sewage Works.
The land is 2·5 miles away from Leyton on a busy road. It is inaccessible for pedestrians. They do not want to go to an old sewage works in Wanstead—they want their forest and open land near Leyton. The letter continues:
As you will realise, they are located 2·2 km (1·5 miles) south-east of the main area of forest land to be lost at the Green Man"—
it is actually 2·5 miles.
It could be said that at that distance they are little compensation for local people.
He is being deeply ironic. The land is no compensation.
They will adjoin Wanstead park which the City also controls under the Epping Forest Act.
So Wanstead gets the green land. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) is here tonight. I do not begrudge him or any other hon. Member the green land. That should be the natural course, but it should not be at the expense of the people of Leyton. It should not be stolen from Leyton and given to Wanstead. That is another example of giving to the already haves. Areas such as Leyton are already deprived of green open space land because they are so heavily built up and because Government cuts do not give the council the opportunity to provide open space land. The letter deals with the replacement land succinctly and shows what a joke it is.
We should remember that sewage land contains many toxic substances. We know from the example of Redbridge that when such land is built upon or walked on it can have

an adverse effect. We are offered a scrubby old sewage works. I do not think that we can trust the Department of Transport to put up the money to get it up to a decent standard.
Park land funding has been cut. The Department of Transport says that responsibility lies with the Department of the Environment, and the Department of the Environment says that responsibility lies with the Department of Transport. They both get out of it. That is the cheek of it. The land will not be brought up to a proper standard. That is something for the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford to argue. It cannot be claimed, however, that the land is a replacement for Leyton people.
The Minister is stealing our forest land and not providing an adequate replacement.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: As it is now just over an hour since the hon. Gentleman started his speech, can he tell us how much land is being lost to the public in his constituency? What is the net loss in Leyton?

Mr Cohen: I am just about to come to that. I am coming to the specifics now. The Minister was not very specific about the central London assessment study and the land that is being taken from Waltham forest marshes to make a grey motorway. He was not specific when there was a prospect of another robbery of green open space land.

Mr. Skinner: Can I get this right? They are getting rid of forest, which they probably would not have done if it were owned by Terry Wogan or one of the other personalities who invest in forests. Are they proposing to replace it with beacons, bollards and the like?

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right about Terry Wogan, but I shall not pursue that line of argument. An amount of forest land is being stolen to make a roundabout for the M11 link road, which could have been a linear park. They are taking several acres of forest land for this roundabout and they are not replacing it with open space land in Leyton. They think Leyton does not matter. They do not care about Leyton. They do not care about built-up areas. They do not give a toss about them.
The Minister will not comment on saving the marshes. All he will say is that I am going on for too long. I will go on demanding my green land, forest land and park land all night if I am given an opportunity—which I know I will not—to stop him cheating the people of Leyton out of it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the hon. Gentleman know, and will he tell us, what the net loss of land in his constituency is? What is the net addition of land available to people in his constituency?

Mr. Cohen: I am coming to that. My figures, however, are not manipulated, distorted and cheated figures which the agents tried to bounce on me in the negotiations. The figures were the biggest distortion I have seen for a long time. I will give the real figures.

Mr. Skinner: When my hon. Friend does that, will he tell us whether the area is bigger than St. James's park, Buckingham palace grounds or some of the other posh areas which the Minister would not dare to lay his hands on?

Mr. Cohen: I confess that the area is not as big as either of those, but it is vital. Whereas Buckingham palace grounds have just a family or two walking over them, my


forest land in Leyton, Leytonstone and Whipps Cross has thousands of families walking over it every weekend. It is crucial that that land should not be taken away without a proper replacement.
I shall give the figures as the Minister is so keen to hear them. They are not his Department's figures. I should make it clear that one acre of land is equivalent to 0·4047 hectares, and a hectare is equivalent to about 2·5 acres. The Minister can get his calculator out now, and he will be able to work out what I am talking about whether I use acres or hectares. To start with, 0·55 hectares is being taken. That does not sound much, but is 1·4 acres of prime forest land by the Green Man that is going to tarmac.
The acreage of the roundabout itself is useless as forest or recreational land for the people of Leyton. But that is just the start. The new roundabout will take up 4·13 acres—or 1·67 hectares—more than the present roundabout. In addition, the total open space that will be lost between the roundabout at the Green Man and Leyton high road is 13·6 acres, or 5·5 hectares. That represents an enormous amount of green land in my area, and the gardens and allotments will not be replaced. In an area of housing density such as Leyton, many people do not have their own gardens as they live in flats, and more houses are being converted into flats. They need their allotments to grow vegetables, especially given the prices of food in the Common Market because of the huge surpluses that the Government have accrued. Instead of bringing food prices down, they make people want to grow their own vegetables and to use allotment land for recreation. But that land is being taken away.
In addition to taking away people's gardens and allotments, the Government are taking away a playing field at Leytonstone House hospital without compensation. The truth is that the Government are robbing us of our open spaces. That is only on one side of the roundabout. On the other side of the roundabout, at Temple Mills, on the other side of Leyton high road, we are losing another 3·5 acres, or 1·4 hectares—the Minister can get out his calculator. That includes a slice of Eastway sports centre which is also being nicked. It is part of Lea Valley regional park. A beautiful green area and a vital amenity for local people will be sliced into by the motorway-mad Minister without being replaced. All that green land will be covered in tarmac.
The Minister asked for the figures and I have given him the figures but he is nonchalant. He does not give a damn about all the green land being taken away from Leyton.
The Waltham Forest Guardian, another local paper, stated on 17 February 1989:
There will be a 26 ft wide link across the interchange between Leyton and Wanstead Flats, said the conservators.
That land is not specifically mentioned in the Bill. I was not consulted and the people of Leyton were not consulted on that. It represents more land being lost without proper compensation. I reiterate that it is a densely urban area where green land, open space and forest land are at an absolute premium. The Minister of Transport is snuffing it out without a thought for the people of Leyton.
I have given the Minister the figures and he has not jumped up to deny them. He is jumped up, but he has not jumped up to deny the figures. It will be noted in Hansard that the Minister could not repudiate the figures.
There is a further adverse aspect of the road scheme and the Bill which is taking forest land from Leyton without compensation to the people who live there. Mr. John

Goldsmith FRIBA is behind the Lister Goldsmith plan for that linear park which would have been such a wonderful innovation for the environment and people of Leyton. On 26 April he wrote to the Prime Minister because he felt so strongly about the deleterious effect of the road, saying:
I have now witnessed a further 'development' of the A12 London to M11 link road as a result of the engineering particulars being revealed. Instead of the promised permanent landscaping along the fringe of the new routes we are now being told that this space is being required for pipes and ducts.
That was supposed to be permanent landscaping. We were promised a little green sward along the edge, but now it will be scrubby old land for the pipes and ducts. Mr. Goldsmith continued:
Gardens to surviving housing are being further reduced to postage stamp size to house the extra cabling.

Mr. Skinner: What does he mean by postage-stamp size?

Mr. Cohen: He means that the people in those houses will have the smallest gardens imaginable. Yet the Bill will also take away their forest land and they will not even have their own gardens. Postage-stamp size means that their gardens will be minute because the Minister made a cock-up or perhaps deliberately promised landscaping when he knew all the time that the engineering work would require ducts, pipes and cables. He did not want to get into a row at any inquiry with people who have been denied their opportunity to get compensation. The underhand Minister has led them up the garden path, but they will not have much of a garden path left in future because of the Government's approach and their double standards.
If those people are to have such small gardens, there is all the more reason why they should have forest land, parks and open spaces in Leyton as some compensation, but the Minister could not care less.

Mr. Skinner: What kind of trees are in the forest?

Mr. Cohen: None of the Conservative Members have caught me out, but my hon. Friend has caught me out because I have not counted the trees. They are lovely green trees, oaks and elms, but my hon. Friend is leading me astray. They are beautiful trees. I have to confess to my hon. Friend that he has caught me out. I once tried to learn about trees and their leaves. I pinned a beautiful chart on my wall, but I am not better at identifying any particular trees.

Mr. Skinner: Are they deciduous or evergreen? Mr. Cohen: They are evergreens.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not intervene from a sedentary position.

Mr Skinner: Quite frankly, if we are talking about saving a small forest or part of it, we should know about it. I think that there should be a site visit before any decision is taken to see what will be destroyed. If we had a site visit we would find out what sort of trees are there. For example, in London there are a lot of plane trees. In my part of the world there are many horse chestnut and sweet chestnuts in Clumber park and Sherwood forest. It all depends on the soil. There are many rhododendrons in this part of the world. I would bet diamonds that there are rhododendrons in that part of' the forest and they will be taken out.

Mr. Cohen: If I had known of my hon. Friend's interest I would have brushed up on the different trees on the land there. It is a lovely part of the forest to stroll through and I have rambled through it with the Epping forest ramblers. The fresh air is beautiful. Yet that is all to be taken away.

Mr. Skinner: There will not be gorse.

Mr. Cohen: There will be gorse. The forest will be made into a motorway.

Mr Frank Haynes: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Nottinghamshire we have many trees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said? We have one particular tree called the major oak which is supposed to be connected with Robin Hood. With the growth in industry, slowly but surely the forest is being destroyed. There is a programme connected with Europe to replant that forest. The destruction of forests is shocking and I welcome my hon. Friend's speech on that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not about Clumber park. Let us stick to the City of London (Various Powers) Bill.

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely mentioned the major oak. That is all. I am talking about my hon. Friend's forest. We are replanting the forest in Nottinghamshire, yet Epping Forest is being destroyed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Clearly, I misunderstood. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was inviting the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to comment on Nottinghamshire, which would be out of order.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be more appropriate for the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to take his two hon. Friends to the forest at the Green Man roundabout?

Mr. Cohen: I take heed of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would welcome hon. Gentlemen having a look at this part of the forest and, indeed, the whole forest. It is a beautiful amenity for local people. I would welcome a site visit. We need forest preserved in Nottinghamshire just as we do in Leyton. The people of Leyton do not want their forest land taken away.

Mr. Haynes: May I suggest that we take a picnic to the area and invite you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you are not liking my interventions today? That may make you feel a bit better.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I called the hon. Gentleman to order only once and today is the first time that I have ever apologised from the Chair to anyone.

Mr. Cohen: It is nice walking land and it is green, unlike everything else which is grey and full of lorries and pollution. That is what is so welcome about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right about the problem of oaks in Nottingham not being replanted properly, and it is the same in Whipps Cross. I had a go at the Conservatives who run the City of London about the neglect of Epping forest, particularly in my area. One aspect of that neglect is that they have not replanted properly, so the forest is being run down. That is happening in many other areas, for example, where people like Terry Wogan plant trees for tax benefits. Areas of natural woodland are beng neglected.
I am sure that in Nottinghamshire areas are being run down because the Government are too mean to put up the money for the National Trust and Nature Conservancy Council to replant properly for the future. That is a tragedy. Today we see trees that were planted in the 1850s, not recently planted trees. That is because the Government were too mean to have a proper green policy in the past decade.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend recall that a couple of years ago we had a hurricane and that many trees fell on that October night? As a result nearly every hon. Member said how sad it was and that a big replacement programme was needed throughout southern England. The Government had to be pushed and shoved to find sufficient money to assist. Hyde park, Kew gardens and many beautiful places in and around London were affected seriously. Less than a year later the same Government are trying to kid us on that their interest in trees and forests at that time was real. They do not care about little old Leyton and its little patch. It is one thing when something affects their people and another for us. Those of us who want to see the greenery and forest remain in Leyton have perfect justification to say to my hon. Friend, "Carry on with this point."

Mr. Cohen: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, but I must tell him that at the time of the hurricane the Government did not care. They did not fund in full the replacement programme.

Mr. Skinner: They were forced to.

Mr. Cohen: They did not refund local authorities in full. All sorts of ancillary costs were left to local authorities, such as Waltham Forest, to meet. Funding certainly was not 100 per cent. Moreover, my local authority is subject to rating penalties. For every pound that it spent, the ratepayers spent £1·60 because of the Government's meanness. That was exacerbated by the Government not funding the cost in full.

Mr. Haynes: Where there are trees there are birds, and there is nothing better than getting up in the early morning, particularly in Leyton, and listening to the birds singing. If there are no trees there will be no birds, and that is another reason why my hon. Friend is worried about Leyton.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes another genuine point, but I shall not go into it, except to say that I agree that birds, indeed all flora and fauna, are important and should be recognised as important. We should not have tarmac spread all over this green land.
The Minister asked for specifics and I have already given him the total acreage, but he failed to respond. I shall continue because I have much more detail. Mr. Goldsmith said:
An existing girls' school science block annexe will be perched on the edge of the cutting"—
it will right by the side of the road—
and a local authority is being made to find the cost of double glazing and the perpetual ventilation cost. This ventilation running cost is the same for the local residents too and they get no relief.
That shows how the Minister through the Bill is harming the people of Leyton. Mr. Goldsmith continues:
Judging by the treatment that the Beazer Enterprise Route has received"—
that was a way of getting at least some cover for the road—


from the Department where a commuted sum of £4 million has been demanded by the Department"—
that is a scandal; the Department should be putting up the £4 million—
for future maintenance of the private housing over the road tunnel, now sadly abandoned as a result"—
sabotaged by the Minister and his Department—
I now believe this precedent should work in reverse and that tenants who are boxed up by sound insulation and can only breathe in their homes via a fan and, or cooler should receive a substantial capital sum to offset the running cost of such equipment together with its replacement cost at some future date. I will suggest through a copy of this letter to the press that such a sum should be half the value of the house at present market prices.
Mr. Goldsmith then asks the Prime Minister, "Do you agree?" He concludes the letter:
Of course, if these urban roads were properly designed for the 20th Century with protective lids, such costs would not be necessary.
The Department demanded money up front from the enterprise group and the council for covering the road, but it will not provide the money for ventilation for local people.
I now come to another aspect of the matter. When I spoke to the negotiators and said what I wanted as compensation for this piece of forest being stolen from the people of Leyton by the Department of Transport, I was told by the agents, "What you are asking for is peanuts, Mr. Cohen." They contacted the Department of Transport, which said, "No deal." That was the very last day before the date was set for debating the Bill. They did not come up with any offer before that, presumably under the orders of the Department of Transport, which did not want to make any deals. What they came up with as a replacement—I have the maps here if any hon. Member wants to see them—was what. I can only describe as "SLOAP"—surplus land left over after planning. It is what is left over after a building has been put up—perhaps a few metres of land, which may be landlocked and which cannot be used in the planning. It is rubbish. With the Department of Transport it is a slippery slope and when we got on to "SLOAP" the negotiations went downhill all the way.
Some hon. Members may think that the offer of replacement land was genuine because there are six items—

Mr. Skinner: When did the Minister slope off?

Mr. Cohen: It was not a genuine offer because it was land at the side of the road to replace the forest land stolen from the people of Leyton.
I shall summarise what is on the map. The first piece of land was by Eastway near Temple Mills marshalling yard. It was a thin slither of land along the road next to industrial land. I was after a proper replacement for forest land, a decent open space or park land, but all I got was this leftover land which must be the responsibility of the Department of Transport anyway because it is part of its plans. The land is inaccessible to local residents and particularly to pedestrians because it is blocked on one side by the marshalling yard and on the other by industrial land. The nearest residents would have to get over two—not one—2m high barriers on each side of the road to have access to the land. Even if they got past one barrier, managed to get across the road without being run over and climbed the other barrier they would need a pair of skis to get down on to the land. That slither of land is useless.
The second bit of land was at the back of Trelawn road near the railway station, which is also right next to the link road. That was another narrow sliver of land. Its only use could be as the back gardens of the houses in Trelawn road. The Minister and his Department know that the only common sense use for the land is as the back gardens of the people in that road. It will not be much good to them because it will be right up against the main road, but if it is not used for that, it will just be some leftover land which the Department will be responsible for keeping tidy. It is no compensation for the forest land stolen at the Green Man roundabout.
The third bit of "SLOAP" was another thin sliver of land between Grove Green road and the link road. My hon. Friends do not know the area, so I should tell them that Grove Green road and the link road will run parallel to each other, and even after this major motorway project gets under way, Grove Green road will still carry about 1,000 vehicles an hour. It will still be a busy local road, yet the Department wanted to offer as compensation the bit of land between the two. If children were kicking a ball about, it could run on to either of the two main roads and they could get run over. Yet that was supposed to be a replacement for the forest land stolen from the people of Leyton by the Department of Transport.

Mr. Haynes: That is a very interesting point because it raises the question of road safety. The Minister regularly preaches at the Dispatch Box about road safety, yet here the Department is creating a problem for youngsters and adults who could be run down by vehicles on that busy road.

Mr. Skinner: Two busy roads.

Mr. Cohen: Two busy roads, as my hon. Friend said. That is why it was ridiculous to put that land up as a replacement for the forest land stolen from the people of Leyton.

Mr. Skinner: How wide was the other bit?

Mr. Cohen: I cannot tell my hon. Friend the exact size, but it was not very large. One expects kids to play football in open spaces, but in this case the right and left wings would be main roads. Not many of those kids would end up playing for Leyton Orient because as soon as they put the ball wide, they would get run over.
The fourth bit of "SLOAP" is even more disgusting. That was near Connaught school, abutting directly on the link road. It was shameful that the Department refused to tunnel at least that small part of the road. They would not tunnel any of the rest of it, and they refused at the very minimum to make this little bit of tunnel by the girls' school. That was a disgraceful aspect of the Minister's policy. Parts of the annexe to the school will be only 2 m away from a busy motorway. How can those pupils study properly? The Minister even refused to put up the money to double-glaze the annexe. If the Department must offer this so-called "SLOAP" by the side of the road, it should at least—the local residents may have something to say about it—place compulsory purchase orders on the few houses between that bit of land and the school. The Department would have to pay proper compensation so that those affected could be properly rehoused. At least the residents would then have more land which could be used for dual purposes—as green land for the school and park land for the community. The area would not have been


very big even then. I asked the Department to do at least that, but the Department and the Minister were too mean and would not get their act together. The land is useless to the school because there is no proper direct access to it.
In any case, there is a serious housing crisis in my area. If I had time, I would deal with that in greater detail. The council cannot place compulsory purchase orders on the properties and rehouse the occupants to the standard that would be required because it does not have the money or the houses; it has an enormous waiting list. That option, too, was therefore ruled out by the Department of Transport.
The motorway will create enormous problems for the school. The construction of the road is already posing problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) talked about road safety and the safety of the children. The teachers and the education authority have expressed their concern and anxiety about the children's safety and about the fact that the Department is doing nothing about it. The Department of Education and Science will come up against the problem. It will have to decide what to do about the site—perhaps on a replacement school. It is the same old story—the machinery of Government working for a mean Government: the Department of Transport says that it is the concern of the Department of Education and Science; the Department of Education and Science says that it is the concern of the Department of Transport and in the meantime those kids are at risk, that school has a rotten environment and the Department of Transport steals our forest land without giving us proper replacement land. That bit of "SLOAP" was also useless.
The fifth bit of "SLOAP" was a small triangle of land in Grove Green road, again abutting on the motorway—the M11 link road—at Nos. 481 to 493 Grove Green road. Yet again the Department would not place compulsory purchase orders on the houses and provide generous compensation for the residents, although that would have allowed us to get a small bit of land together. It would still have been very small and not a good environment. The so-called "SLOAP" is a useless set of blobs of land not linked together and adjacent to the road. That is how the Department tried to brush me off, having nicked the forest land in Leyton. As hon. Members can imagine, I was not prepared to put up with that nonsense.
The last bit of "SLOAP" was a small sliver between Fillebrook road and the link road. It is unusable. It has exactly the same drawbacks as the bit of Grove Green road that I described, where the green land is between the two roads. It was right up against the most dangerous and busiest point of the motorway—the Green Man roundabout interchange, with which the Bill deals.
None of that land could be regarded as a proper replacement for the forest land stolen by the Government from the people of Leyton—not by any stretch of the imagination. There should have been a linear park anyway. All these "SLOAPs—

Mr. Skinner: Where does that word come from?

Mr. Cohen: It is a planning term, and I was chairman of planning in the London borough of Waltham Forest. I think that they thought that they could pull the wool over

my eyes because I had no planning experience, but I am not so easily fooled when it comes to matters affecting my constituency.
In the end, the Department of Transport will have to hand over all these pieces of land. They are there because the Department refused the linear park option and carved a motorway through Leyton and Leytonstone, with adverse effects on local residents. These little bits of land have been left over. They will go to the local authority, which will have to manage them. If that does not happen, the Department of Transport will be under enormous pressure to keep the land in good shape. I shall be asking questions in the House and, frankly, the Minister's life and that of his successors will be hell. Of course, the Department will palm off the land. We were not going to be fooled by that nonsense.
Let me draw attention to another letter from the director of the development department, who said:
My understanding is that you have a meeting with the Department shortly to discuss your objection to the Bill. I understand that the Department intends to draw to your attention the various small open spaces alongside the link road through Leyton—for instance, off Grove Green road, Fillebrook road and Ashbridge road. These total about one hectare—2·4 acres in all. By and large, these are narrow spaces, which are simply undevelopable areas left over from the Department's CPOs.

Mr. Skinner: Slithers.

Mr. Cohen: Yes, slithers.
The letter continues:
They are of limited visual value only.
One would expect that, given that they are right on top of the motorway. It goes on:
Few have any recreational potential. These open spaces also include land currently occupied by church land which LRT want for replacement car parking".
The officer showed that the offer from the Department of Transport was rubbish.
The Minister and the House will want to know what I specifically asked for to replace the forest land that had been stolen. I am a pragmatist.

Mr. Skinner: No, you are not.

Mr. Cohen: Well my hon. Friend may not think so, but I am pragmatic and I wanted a linear park and all the road in a tunnel.

Mr. Skinner: I do not believe that that is being pragmatic. My hon. Friend should reflect on what he has just said. He was negotiating a deal and I do not believe that that was being pragmatic. He was faced with the machinery of state and realised that he could get something for his constituents—a linear park—where kids could play and which would exist for a lifetime and beyond. My hon. Friend did the right thing. The truth is that it is clear that the Government were only interested in stealing the land and they did not want any conclusion to be reached. I do not believe that my hon. Friend was being pragmatic; he was being sensible. He was working on behalf of his constituents. I hope that my hon. Friend will not use that word, because it has been used by a lot of people just lately. There is a bloke who sits on the Bench near me who has been using it just now.

Mr. Cohen: I appreciate my hon. Friend's kind words. I was trying to do a deal. I had wanted a linear park and the road in a tunnel, but I knew that this was a small Bill, and that there was no way in which my request could be


granted at this stage in the proceedings and that, therefore, I had to come to a deal. Therefore, what I asked for was limited—just a replacement for that forest land stolen by the Department of Transport, which had given no proper replacement land.
All I wanted was a deal with some quid pro quo in relation to the land stolen—I did not want the whole lot replaced. When I went to the agent for Sherwood and Co.—the agent for the City of London—and described what I wanted, she described it as peanuts in relation to the road scheme. She said that she would take my request back to the Department of Transport to see whether I could get the peanuts that I wanted. I must say that I was rather worried as I thought that I had underbid and that I could have got more for Leyton. For a while I was panic-stricken, but then I thought that I had put in my bid and should stick by it. Then my secretary got a phone call to say that the Department of Transport said "No deal" It would not even offer the peanuts for the forest land stolen from the people of Leyton. That shows just how mean the Government are.
It is right that the House should know what I asked for —that is a genuine request—as a replacement for the forest land stolen—

Mr. Skinner: Instead of a linear park?

Mr. Cohen: Yes, it was instead of a linear park, but as a replacement for the forestry land stolen by the Department. Green land is at a premium in my area and I appreciate that it is not easy to get a replacement, but at least I thought that the Department could do something about open spaces and parks as compensation. I said that I had Cann Hall park coming on stream in my area. It is meant to be a play area for six to 12-year-olds, a dual use kick-about area. The officers at the council described it as
a preliminary scheme for this site which is currently vacant involving a 6 to 12s play area, kick-about area and a sitting-out area, which would cost about £200,000.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover would agree that that is peanuts. In any case that park should have been provided for by rate support grant and capital funds. The Government are denying the children in that heavily built up area the opportunity of having a little kickabout.
I also asked about Skeltons lane, which is a play area for the six to 12-year-olds, and about servicing work at City farm. The officer said:
Improvements at this park, which might involve providing a city farm, a six to 12s play area, and new planting, would cost about £230,000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover talked about birds, but it is important that the kids in an urban area should also have a look at the animals, and learn about them. We had the chance to set up such a project. It should have been done straight out of the rate support grant and the capital funds which the Government have cut. However, they refused to put up the money. We are talking about absolute peanuts.
Harrow road is a play area for the under-fives. That small site—

Mr. Skinner: We could have got that money out of Common Market fraud.

Mr. Cohen: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. The money that we are talking about is peanuts compared with the money involved in Common Market fraud.
The officer said of Harrow road:
This small site next to the Acacia nursery could be laid out as an under-fives play area with planting and new fencing. A scheme here would cost about £50,000.
However, we then received a phone call from the Minister saying, "No deal—we cannot afford it." The Government can afford Trident missiles, but they cannot afford £50,000. What a disgrace that is.
That was basically the list for which I asked. I had the forest in mind, because the Government are stealing forest land without giving compensation. Therefore, I wanted something done for the forest in my area. I shall read the list, which might seem long, but is not really. It is a sensible list, detailing what should have been done to the forest if the conservators were doing their jobs properly and if the City of London was really responsible for the forest. It merely has nominal responsibility for it.
I told the officers that there could be improvements to Epping forest land, and amenities in Leyton. First, I asked about improved rubbish clearance, which would be sensible, and would be popular locally. The area gets full of litter because it is heavily used.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has a good list but there is no need for including rubbish clearance because it is covered already. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment go round clearing up these places. He carries the bag and its "bag it and bin it." Therefore, I do not see why he should worry about that problem.

Mr. Cohen: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but I am afraid that they do not reach as far as Leyton and Leytonstone. They would be welcome to come along and clear up the rubbish, as would the Minister who is present. I extend an open invitation to the Minister for Roads and Traffic, whose Department is stealing the forest land, to come along and tidy up the area that is being left. Again, we receive an impassive response from the Minister. He certainly will not put up the small amount of money to do that job properly.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Perhaps, while the hon. Gentleman, together with his hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), are counting the trees at the Green Man roundabout, which is one of the commitments that have been offered and accepted by the hon. Members, I might come to see what the situation is and, if necessary, help.
May I make it plain that the Government support this part of the Bill, and that 40 per cent. of the cost of the Hackney to M11 link is for environmental projection and improvement. It is plain that it is difficult for the House to consider the details because, in a long speech, the hon. Gentleman has not put them forward. The scheme offers great advantages and much money has been spent on environmental protection. It is also plain that most people believe that the exchange land offered will provide net benefits, both for Leyton and for the forest.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Can I remind the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that he has been speaking for nearly two hours and there are other hon. Members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr. Cohen: I do not like saying harsh words, so I shall put this gently, Mr. Speaker. You were not here at the beginning of the debate, when I said that this Bill adversely


affects my constituency and only my constituency. Others are generally content with it. I need to get that point over, and I appreciate that you did not hear my opening comments—

Mr. Skinner: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend for the past hour and a half and I think that his is an extraordinary performance by a Member of Parliament fighting on behalf of his constituency. I have seen other examples of this, I remember the Father of the House fighting for almost four hours against a proposition to blight a large part of his area. He got stuck in and somehow managed to succeed. I hope that my hon. Friend will do the same.
I want to know whether the Minister's intervention a moment ago was helpful. Was there anything in it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The point is that, although the hon. Gentleman has every right to make his points on behalf of his constituents, if he does not give the Minister the chance to reply he will never know whether he is making a concession.

Mr. Cohen: If the Minister does not get the chance to speak in this limited debate, he can write to me offering to come and clear away rubbish in this part of the forest. Or he can offer to replace the land. I have already heard the Minister's response from the agent. When he told me that what I had asked for was peanuts, he went to the Department. He may have spoken to the Minister, for all I know—he certainly spoke to one of his minions. The Department said, "No deal."
I am still hoping to change the Minister's mind, but I have no confidence that he will change it, just as I have no confidence in his intervention. The only land replacement that he mentioned was the "SLOAP" that I have referred to—he based his case on it. That does not give me much confidence.
As I was saying, I asked for rubbish clearance. Then I asked for the restoration of the ancient woodlands at Whipps Cross. We have a little patch of ancient woodlands there which has fallen into disuse and been run down due to the Conservatives' and the City of London's neglect of Leyton. It is not a Tory area, so the Government do not want to save those ancient woodlands or give them the respect due to them—

Mr. Skinner: What does my hon. Friend mean by "ancient"?

Mr. Cohen: They might even date back to BC.—I do not know the age of the trees. However, I am told that it is a precious piece of land—

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with those remarks, which are an insult to the integrity of the superintendent of the City Corporation. These ancient woodlands have been disappearing as a result of natural soil causes. So he must not talk about costs, because at no stage has any money for the replacement of the woodlands been considered—this is a natural disappearance. The rest of what the hon. Gentleman said may be right, but he must not attack servants of the corporation who are doing a first-class job.

Mr. Cohen: Nevertheless, they have allowed the woodlands to decline. What is more, they have not put

enough effort into restoring them. Conservatives are much more interested in putting their money into other areas; they do not see Leyton as a priority, with the result that our ancient woodlands are being destroyed more quickly than other areas.
My action plan to save the woodlands was not unreasonable—it should have been implemented anyway. It is a scandal that the Department of Transport rejected it.
Next, I asked for action to plant avenue trees in Ferndale road at Wanstead flats—not an unreasonable request—and to provide proper disposal facilities for the chemical toilets at the fair at Sydney road. That, too, is something that should have been done anyway.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that in other parts of the country, for example in the industrial north, slag heaps have been reclaimed and the areas planted with trees and regrassed? The fact that soil has been affected by chemicals is no disincentive to replanting trees, to reseed and redevelop natural woodland areas.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The disincentive to the Government is money and they will not put up a penny for areas such as mine. They say that proper replacement is a bit of old sewage land 2·5 miles away in Wanstead. They should be replanting trees.

Mr. Haynes: Nottinghamshire council is Labour controlled and it is replacing trees right, left and centre in the county. I said on Thursday night that I hope when the Speaker retires he will move into that beautiful county because he likes to go there. He will see that trees are planted. My hon. Friend is right. The Minister will not find the money to replace trees because all that the Government want to do is to destroy them.

Mr. Cohen: The Speaker has much respect for trees, green land and open spaces where he likes to ride his horse. He certainly has more respect for open space and forest land than the Minister for Roads and Traffic. The Minister is stealing forest land in Leyton.
I asked about improving the Hellow ponds at Whipps Cross for boating. They have not changed since 1909. The Conservators have not prepared a boating plan for that area. It is a lovely recreational area for local people but it could be improved. However, the Government are too mean to improve it. I asked about providing disability access, decent paths in the forest for wheelchairs. That is a sensible suggestion and Conservatives in the City of London and the Minister should have taken it up. I asked for peanuts and the agents have admitted that. Unfortunately, I underbid because all the things that I asked for were obvious and should have been done before.
I did not ask for a great deal. I asked for improved lighting on the footpaths, especially in Bushwood which is around the forest area. We all know that terrible problems are caused by poor lighting, but I shall not go into that because I know that time is short. I asked for nature trails and educational services for the kiddies to enjoy the forest and for a forest craft centre. That would bring in the Nature Conservancy Council to prepare a plan and upgrade and improve the forest. Those are sensible suggestions and two other possibilities were thrown in.
When the council officers put up the next two suggestions I was not very impressed. They were about


land at Riverbourne E11 which is just outside my constituency. It is an area about 1·2 km north of the Green Man off Snaresbrook road. It is open woodland and owned, oddly enough, by the London borough of Redbridge which has done us no favours. It immediately adjoins the forest and is separated from it by a concrete panel fence. Redbridge currently treats it as an amenity open space for its adjoining housing estate. That could have been opened up as a bit of green along with the land to the rear of 6 to 30 Sydney road. That is in my constituency, but right on the border and out of the way. It would be nice to use that and it could be provided at low cost. This is a small vacant site of about 0·2 hectares—0·5 acres·which we understand is privately owned and not fenced off from the adjoining forest land. It is about 1·8 km from the Green Man. That is forest land that could and should be used anyway, although as it is on a small scale, it will not compensate for the forest land that has been stolen from my constituents. That was what I asked for. Does the Minister agree that what I asked for was peanuts?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman does not need to ask me. I can confirm that both the size of the forest and the amounts of other green land in the vicinity of the route will increase as a result of construction of the road. During this debate, it has been established that the environment will improve in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and outside. We have established that, on my visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency with him, he did not raise these matters. We have confirmed that he did not raise them with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when they were at a meeting with the London group of Labour Members of Parliament. When I went to the Green Man roundabout on Friday—a few days ago—I did not see that many trees or people in the middle of the roundabout, which is what the hon. Gentleman has been discussing for the past over two hours.

Mr. Cohen: They are stealing the forest land and the green land in my constituency. I have given the figures for which the Minister asked, showing the acreage that is being stolen. At the beginning, the Minister was dead keen for me to give him the figures, but when I did so he shut up. He could not respond to that. All he is offering is slum land, left over after planning. He claims that that is a replacement. That is a mean deception.
When the Minister came to Leytonstone, in the very first few minutes the press asked him whether he would answer questions about the Green Man roundabout and the tunnelling of the road. The local councillors, the chief executive and the planning officer asked the same thing. The Minister said that he was not there to discuss that and he refused to discuss it. He put a block on it. I will get all those who asked him about that, if he wants to see them again. He cannot fool the press. They asked questions and they were mad keen to get the answers, to get something out of the Department of Transport, but he put a block on it. Now he has the cheek to come here and say that the question was not raised.

Mr. Bottomley: We have established during this debate, and certainly during the hon. Gentleman's speech, most of the points that might have been made otherwise on behalf of the Department of Transport in support of the Bill and its Second Reading. If the hon. Gentleman brings together these witnesses, whether they confirm what I said or what he claims that I said, they will know that I walked up and

down the high street with the hon. Gentleman. I said, "This is Harry Cohen" and one or two said, "Yes, we know." Others said, "Come on, let's go round and see the improvements that the Department of Transport has made on the existing road and, by the way, can we look forward to the Hackney-M11 link, which will provide the major environmental improvement in the constituency, casualty reduction and the opportunity of more jobs?" All three would be well served by the proposed road, which this Bill would help.

Mr. Cohen: The Minister came along and did his normal PR exercise, posed for the photos, planted a tree and treated it as fun and games. He made a big show of it. He wanted to stay well in. When it came to the substance, he flopped it. He refused to answer. In the first two minutes, the press asked him questions about the new M11 link, about getting some more tunnels and the Beazer scheme, which would have at least meant more tunnel in various parts of the road, but he said that he was not there to answer such questions and put a block on them, which was a disgrace.
Mr. Keaton wrote to me on 2 May. He explained
Perhaps I could add that as can be seen from the Bill the conservators are required to keep forest land unenclosed and unbuilt on as open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. In addition, they are required under the 1978 Act to maintain the forest's natural aspects.
I agree with that. I understand that it is difficult to find replacement land in a busy, urban, built-up area. There are planning problems, and they are not solved by the "sloap". However, at the very least, my demand could halve been met. I asked for more open space, for parks to be upgraded and for improvements to be made to the running of the forest in my constituency.
The more I think about these matters and the longer that the debate continues, the more I think that I underbid, especially when the representative of the agents said that I was asking for peanuts. Replacement land should have been provided to take account of the forest land that would be lost. Anyone who reads the report of the debate will understand that what I asked for was reasonable.
One of the results of the scheme is that the Department of Transport is making thousands of pounds every day against the would-be construction costs. The result of high interest rates is that prices are coming down. At the very least, price increases are slowing down. Prices are not as high as were anticipated by the Department. As I have said, the Department is making thousands of pounds every day and every week, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds. It is happy to drag out the matter for that reason. At the same time, it is not prepared to pay peanuts for the improvement of the environment in my constituency.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: How much do you want, Harry?

Mr. Cohen: I have provided the figures. I have made it clear that they amount to about £500,000. The agent's representative talked about that as peanuts. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could put that sum together. I am sure that many of his hon. Friends could do so as well. Let it be understood, however, that it is a lot of money for my area. Forest land is being stolen from my constituency. The money involved is nothing for many Conservative Members. I suppose that it amounts to no more than a few gins and tonic for them.

Mr. Skinner: We know that £500 million was offered to the Kent Tory-held constituencies so that the Members concerned could try to hang on to their seats. That was a Government-sponsored move through British Rail. The sum that my hon. Friend is talking about is peanuts when it is set against that. It is about 1,000 per cent. less than the amount which was offered to bail out Tory constituencies. However, my hon. Friend is talking about a working-class area.

Mr. Cohen: Absolutely. My hon. Friend has raised a good point. I am asking for less than £500,000 for the replacement of the land. Also involved is a small amount—about £250,000—for the forest land. Even if the total sum reached £1 million overall, it would still be peanuts when set against other items of expenditure. The Government will not give in because of their meanness to working-class people in working-class areas. They are prepared to steal forest land, but they are not prepared to provide a proper replacement.
After the so-called negotiations, during which what I asked for was described as peanuts, I received a letter from the council. It was written by the remembrancer of the Guildhall in the City of London. It is clear that the City of London does not remember Leyton to any great extent. It was the remembrancer but there is not much memory when it comes to decent services for Leyton. The letter to which I refer was headed "City of London (Various Powers) Bill". The body of the letter reads:
I am sorry that it was not possible to reach an agreement on the road provisions in this Bill following our meeting of Wednesday.
The remembrancer must have been crying into his tea as he wrote that. The letter continues:
As you will know from our agents, we put all the points that you raised to the Department of Transport.
Those are the points that I raised with the Minister and his Department. The remembrancer explained:
They are to look at the land that you referred to but they were not attracted by the other suggestions that you raised.
Not attracted!
I will be in touch again soon when I have more news.
After that I received a phone call, during which I was told that there was no deal. They were not attracted because they are not the ones who will suffer. Their land is not being stolen. They are not the people who will suffer by having their forest land stolen and not replaced. The people of Leyton are very attracted to receiving proper compensation and open land. For them, that represents the air that they breathe and the green land that they walk on. That reply exposes the disgraceful attitude shown by the Minister and his Department.
I shall not make a big speech about horse riding, but it is another aspect of the Bill. I shall speak about it only in so far as it affects the stealing of Leyton's forest land. With the Bill, there is a map of the whole forest, which stretches for an enormous distance, and which shows running through it pathways coloured orange indicating the routes that horse riders can take. If they leave those routes they are in trouble.
Those routes are shown to run through the whole of the forest, except in the Whipps Cross area in my constituency. That shows how little regard the Government have for the people of Leyton. Does that not strike the House and the Minister as being a little funny and as being a dirty, rotten deal for the people of Leyton?
I received a letter from Dr. F. B. O'Connor, director of the Nature Conservancy Council, which asks me to support the Bill. It deals mainly with clause 9, concerning the control of horse riding. I shall not be nasty about that particular clause, but Dr. O'Connor writes:
Heavy usage by riders is causing severe damage to the flora and fauna in the forest.
What about Leyton? As I said, I shall not be nasty about horse riding, and if people want to ride then they should be allowed to do so. Nevertheless, many people walk on the land in Leyton of which I speak. Leyton is a heavily built-up urban area and people come out every weekend to take a stroll there. They could get knocked over by the horses. What about the flora and fauna in that part of the forest? The City of London should put up money to ensure the replanting that I mentioned earlier.
In addition to all the mistreatment I have cited, the Minister is, through the Bill, using the City of London to steal our forest land and not replace it properly. To Dr. O'Connor and the Nature Conservancy Council I say that they should involve themselves in Whipps Cross. I am genuinely green and am happy to support them on environmental matters, but if Dr. O'Connor and the NCC want my support, they should also be concerned about my area and help protect it. They should put pressure on the City of London, the Department and the Minister to devise a plan to upgrade the Whipps Cross area of the forest and to improve the facilities there, so that the people of Leyton and Leytonstone can enjoy them.
I am angry with the City of London for doing the Department's dirty work for it. I acknowledge that the Department is the main culprit, but in selling out in the way that it has the City of London has not performed its role properly. That made me so angry that I went up to the Table Office. I am now preparing a Bill—which I may present as a ten-minute Bill—entitled the City of London (Abolition of Control of Epping Forest) Bill. I have got it in print.
The City of London could easily not have sold out Leyton and Leytonstone. It could have obtained compensation from this mean, motorway-grey Minister; it would have been peanuts to him. We have been let down badly. I am very tempted to present my Bill. I have not got the wording quite right yet—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That might be a good idea. It would enable others to take part in the debate, particularly the Minister, who could then answer some of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Cohen: The Minister will have plenty of opportunities. Perhaps another hon. Member may wish to raise the issue on the money resolution because of the strength of feeling that it has aroused, and the Minister will then have a chance to respond. We have a debate tomorrow on the soaring cost of the Government's publicity machine. How about a press release saying that the Government will replace the forest land that they are stealing from Leyton people? The Minister does not need to use the House; millions of pounds are being spent on the publicity machine.
I gather that you do not want me to talk about my Bill, Mr. Speaker, but I shall certainly raise it at a later stage. It has been provoked by the treatment of Leyton and Leytonstone residents. I shall propose that control be


taken from the City and redistributed among the local authorities. They will not relinquish their land without a fight and without obtaining proper compensation.
The resources for the running of the forest should be distributed according to how much land is used. In that way Leyton, Leytonstone and Whipps Cross will receive much more, because that land is used heavily by local people. Even if my Bill is not passed because of the Tory majority, at some stage in the future there will not be a Tory majority, and then the reckoning will come. I throw that out as a warning.

Mr. Harry Barnes: A threat.

Mr. Cohen: Yes, as a threat. I get very angry when my forest land is stolen and not replaced. I have a long memory.
Let me come to the substance of my speech. I want to give the House the history that has led to this legislation, and how the M11 link came about. The housing problems are immensely serious. Hundreds of people are about to be thrown on to the streets, but the Department of Transport has not given Waltham Forest the money to rehouse them. The Government claim to have provided the money when there was a Conservative-Liberal local authority in Waltham Forest a few years ago, but on investigation it turned out that the housing investment programme had been cut by only slightly less than the massive cut that had apparently been imposed. The money that the Government provided to rehouse people was really a huge cut in resources. Nobody noticed that this Government had apparently or allegedly given money to decant and rehouse those people.
Instead of putting that money, or that cut, aside to rehouse people, the Conservative-Liberal council used it to keep down the rates. That was its short-term ploy. It has resulted in an immense housing crisis for the people who live along the route. The council has been trying to rehouse those people, but this mean, motorway-mad Minister will not put up a penny to rehouse them. It will create an immense crisis, and I must spend some time on it.
After I have dealt with that crisis, I shall turn to education. I have already said a few words about Connaught school. It faces a real crisis because of the Bill and the provisions concerning the M11 link road. The school deserves a fair deal and proper facilities. The Minister was too mean to provide for tunnelling on one side or the other of that school, as he should have done. We were pressing for tunnelling right along the route, but at the very minimum he should have provided for a tunnel near to Connaught school.

Mr. Skinner: How long would the tunnel have been?

Mr. Cohen: It would have been literally a few metres and the cost would have been negligible over the life of the road, which will be there for at least 100 years. By not having a tunnel near the school, the Minister has condemned the pupils and teachers to absolute misery. It could lead to the demise of the school, although it has performed wonderfully well for the local community. It is now under a death threat because of the mean Department of Transport.
The Department has shifted the goal posts. The House knows that I am a simple sort of fellow. Two years ago the Department said that if we wanted a tunnel, private capital would be needed, that the public purse could not fund

tunnelling and that there would have to be a partnership with private interests. The local council did just that. It got the Beazer corporation to come up with a scheme.

Mr. Skinner: Who are they when they are at home?

Mr. Cohen: It is a big corporation. I have no specific details about it. It was after the work, and it was keen to get a lot of contracts. That was fair enough. It fitted in with the needs of the community. However, when we met the Minister we faced delaying tactics. Eventually, the Department of Transport put obstacles in the corporation's way. It said that the corporation had to put 4 million quid up front. The corporation refused to do that, so the Department of Transport blocked the bid; it killed it. So much for the Government's stated policy of using private capital. When the Minister's bluff was called, he destroyed the scheme.

Mr. Skinner: Who was it?

Mr. Cohen: It was the Minister.
The Government do not want working-class areas to benefit. Working-class areas such as Leyton can be cut up. They do not matter to this Minister, so long as he can ponce about the high street saying what a wonderful fellow he is by planting a few trees.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: rose—

Mr. Cohen: And he can ponce about at the Dispatch Box as well.

Mr. Bottomley: I now understand that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood everything. He has misunderstood the fact that the proposal will make things better in Leyton. Furthermore, I was talking about the hon. Member to his constituents, not about myself. If praising the hon. Gentleman to his own constituents leads him to describe me in that way, we have reached a sorry state of affairs and I am sorry that we have had to listen to him for two and a half hours. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to receive answers to his questions, he ought to have allowed time for them to be answered, or at least debated. The fact that he has monopolised most of the debate means that he thinks that they are worthless points that can easily be rubbished.

Mr. Cohen: That is certainly not true. We had phone calls from the Department of Transport saying, "No deal", yet the agents said that the amount involved was peanuts. It shows the Minister's contempt for Leyton. He now tiles to say something rather different. He should pull the other leg; it has bells on. We know that in reality he is still saying, "No deal", however he dresses it up in a public relations exercise. He is rather good at that, as he is rather good at going up and down the high street. He is doing the dirty on Leyton by stealing our forest land and not giving us proper compensation.
I want to deal with the long history—almost 40 years—of the M11, which has blighted the area. It is the longest blight caused by any road scheme. At a public inquiry in 1983, I, local residents, Mr. Goldsmith and others called for a tunnelled route. We did not object to the road in principle, provided that it was environmentally sound through the use of tunnelling. We said quite clearly that the Department of Transport's plans would divide the community and would cut Leyton and Leytonstone in half.
The linear route proposed by Mr. Goldsmith would have cost only a few million pounds—not a great deal more than the Department's scheme. It would have been in place for 100 or more years and provided enormous advantages for the local area. Instead, an obscenity of a road will carve up Leyton and Leytonstone. The Minister is mean. The scheme has made conservationists and the residents of Leyton and Leytonstone very angry.
It will be impossible to cross the road and the access to it is appalling. Some 280 homes will have been demolished, Connaught school has been annexed and made unusable, and Westdown road will have a high embankment with the motorway running along it—what a lovely visual aspect. The proposals for the Green Man are dangerous and unsightly.
When we put our case to the inspector at the inquiry, he concluded that tunnelling would be a good idea. He said:
It should be a model for future motorways.
Yet the project was savaged and destroyed by the Department of Transport. The only concession in the Bill is tunnelling at the Green Man. The Department and the Minister show more concern for the cattle in Epping forest than for the people of Leyton and Leytonstone.
Local people, the council and environmentalist groups have tried to promote tunnelling. They have picked up the Minister's words and the Government's policies, yet they have been rebuffed. Since the M11 inquiry many other schemes have been tunnelled, even though they provide less environmental benefit than would be provided by tunnelling the M11. The A1M tunnel in Tory-controlled Hatfield received a Department of Transport grant of £8·87 million—£2,900 per linear metre. That would more than cover the cost of tunnelling the link road and providing a linear park. That solution is good enough for Hatfield, but too good for Leyton. Moreover, the Department is stealing our forest land and not replacing it.
The document produced by the action group on the link road says:
Good enough for others. We are the Cinderella of the road building pantomime. While covered roads protect the forest in Epping, residents in Enfield and industry in Hatfield, thousands of men and women living close to the link road are content to suffer an open road, sometimes yards from their houses. What is good enough for others is good enough for us.
It is not, apparently. There is a lovely picture of the Bell common in Epping. It is a lovely bit of green land. The document says:
There is a cricket club here where players and spectators can enjoy their game to the accompaniment of birdsong from the nearby forest trees. Late at night we might see some of the forest creatures crossing the common on their ancient paths. A splendidly English beauty spot. Who would guess that the M24 roars beneath the cricket pitch? Six lanes of traffic speeds through a well-lighted tunnel while up above on the surface life goes on as normal. The cricketers and animals are protected.
It is good enough for Epping, it should be good enough for Leyton. The Department is to steal a bit of land—

Mr. Skinner: Epping is Tory.

Mr. Cohen: Indeed it is. They are stealing a meagre but important bit of forest land. Hatfield got a huge grant from the Department. The document adds:
A covered road is being built at Hatfield in Hertfordshire.
which, of course, is Tory.
The A1M at this section is not in a highly residential neighbourhood nor one of natural beauty. It is an industrial district and there was local opposition when the Department of Transport proposed an unnecessary tunnel outside British Aerospace. Now all is revealed. A £15 million commercial complex is to be built on the tunnel lid. At the link road public inquiry, the Department of Transport denied that it would be possible to build on top of a covered road. Why, when they knew that such a scheme was being planned for Hatfield?
That is another example of the double standards and hypocrisy that have been employed in the Government's dealings with Leyton, which they have given the worst in a shabby deal. Now the Department of Transport is stealing a small bit of forest land and not giving compensation.
The document mentions Enfield, and shows a picture of a lovely bit of greensward. It is not a sliver. Enfield is Tory, although we hope to make it Labour at the next general election. The document says:
You are looking at the M25 motorway. Orbiting London and carrying thousands of vehicles each hour, each car, each van, each lorry emits stinking fumes and makes a great deal of noise. Perhaps you think we got the wrong photograph. We didn't. The M25 at Freezy Water Wall to Enfield runs through the Holmesdale tunnel. A linear park and a school playing field have been constructed on the lid of the tunnel. Residents in the houses on either side need never know the M25 is there. Connaught school in Leytonstone could have a playing field if the M11 link road were covered, and the homes of residents there and in Wanstead would be protected.
Precedents exist, but the Department will not give us a linear park. What an exhibition of meanness and callous, grey, motorway mindedness this is from the Minister. He has other plans to rip up the marshes, which are sites of special scientific interest. Twice I gave him the chance to get up to the Dispatch Box to—

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 24.

Division No. 198]
[10 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Amos, Alan
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, David
Durant, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dykes, Hugh


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Emery, Sir Peter


Beith, A. J.
Fallon, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Forth, Eric


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Freeman, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gill, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butler, Chris
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Harris, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heddle, John


Cope, Rt Hon John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)






Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; Bwd)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Irving, Charles
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jessel, Toby
Sims, Roger


Knapman, Roger
Speller, Tony


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stern, Michael


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stevens, Lewis


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lightbown, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lilley, Peter
Summerson, Hugo


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maclean, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mans, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thorne, Neil


Maude, Hon Francis
Thurnham, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Mellor, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Miller, Sir Hal
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mitchell, Sir David
Waller, Gary


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Wheeler, John


Neale, Gerrard
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Wolfson, Mark


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wood, Timothy


Paice, James



Rathbone, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Steve Norris and


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)



NOES


Allen, Graham
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cohen, Harry
Meale, Alan


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Michael, Alun


Corbyn, Jeremy
Patchett, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Pike, Peter L.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fisher, Mark
Prescott, John


Foster, Derek
Ruddock, Joan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skinner, Dennis


Gordon, Mildred
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Grocott, Bruce



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Haynes, Frank
Mr. Harry Barnes and


McAvoy, Thomas
Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 22.

Division No. 199]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Atkins, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Burns, Simon


Beith, A. J.
Butler, Chris


Bellingham, Henry
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Boswell, Tim
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)





Carrington, Matthew
Mans, Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Marlow, Tony


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Maude, Hon Francis


Cope, Rt Hon John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Couchman, James
Mellor, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Miller, Sir Hal


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Day, Stephen
Mitchell, Sir David


Devlin, Tim
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Dorrell, Stephen
Neale, Gerrard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Nicholls, Patrick


Durant, Tony
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Dykes, Hugh
Paice, James


Emery, Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Fallon, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Sackville, Hon Tom


Forman, Nigel
Sayeed, Jonathan


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Forth, Eric
Sims, Roger


Freeman, Roger
Speller, Tony


Gale, Roger
Stern, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stevens, Lewis


Gill, Christopher
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Summerson, Hugo


Gregory, Conal
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hague, William
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Hannam, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Harris, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Thorne, Neil


Heddle, John
Thurnham, Peter


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Tredinnick, David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Jessel, Toby
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Knapman, Roger
Waller, Gary


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Wells, Bowen


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Wheeler, John


Lightbown, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Lilley, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Livsey, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)



Lord, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclean, David
Mr. Steve Norris and


McLoughlin, Patrick
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


NOES


Allen, Graham
Meale, Alan


Cohen, Harry
Michael, Alun


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pike, Peter L.


Cousins, Jim
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Prescott, John


Foster, Derek
Ruddock, Joan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skinner, Dennis


Gordon, Mildred
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Grocott, Bruce
Vaz, Keith


Hardy, Peter



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Noes:


McAvoy, Thomas
Mr. Harry Barnes and


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the City of London (Various Powers) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—

(a) in reinstating certain land in Epping Forest temporarily occupied by him by virtue of that Act for road purposes;
(b) in reimbursing the Conservators of Epping Forest for such proportion of the costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred and properly paid by them in connection with the preparation, obtaining and passing of that Act as is attributable to its provisions relating to the grant to him for road purposes of rights over and interests in land; and
(c) an indemnifying the Conservators against actions, costs, claims and demands brought or made against or incurred by them which are caused by or arise out of the grant of those rights and interests and which are not attributable to the wrongful act, neglect or default of the Conservators, their contractors, agents, workmen or servants.

We want to ensure that, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bill that has just received its Second Reading, the payment of money provided by Parliament is authorised for expenditure by the Secretary of State for one of three purposes—to indemnify the conservators, to reimburse the conservators, and to reinstate the land in the forest temporarily occupied on behalf of the Secretary of State for road purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) moved the Second Reading in his characteristic expert way and with good humour. Sadly, he was followed by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) who, without humour and with an uncharacteristically long speech, managed to turn the fate of a roundabout into the fate of Epping forest. I invite the hon. Member for Leyton to take with him Thames Television or BBC London television cameras, and his hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), and to show them the part of the forest which justified his comment that forest land was being stolen.

Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been on his feet for many moments, but he has not yet mentioned money. If I had been in the Chair, I should have pulled him up by now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I feel certain that the Minister is going to talk about the money resolution.

Mr. Bottomley: I think that the hon. Member for Ashfield must be moving from one part of the Chamber to another. In my introductory remarks, I mentioned each of the three parts of the money resolution.

Mr. Harry Cohen: rose—

Mr. Bottomley: Having finished my point of order, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Leyton who kindly gave way to me earlier.

Mr. Cohen: I am worried about the Government's press manipulation. Tomorrow, we are to have a debate on the

millions of pounds that they spend on press manipulation. If the Minister takes a camera team and points it from the forest towards the existing roundabout, it will see motorway, but if it points its cameras in the other direction it will see forest land. That is the land that the Minister is stealing from the people of Leyton.

Mr. Bottomley: I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be over exciting his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in the same way that he overexcited his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. When the hon. Member for Bolsover discovered the time that the first Division was called on the previous business, what the debate had been about and what the hon. Member for Leyton had managed to cover in just over two and a half hours, the face of the hon. Member for Bolsover was quite entertaining.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate made the point that the deal with the corporation of London to look after Hampstead heath was in the great tradition of the City of London and the corporation. They have greatly cared for Epping forest and other parts of London and around, with proper trusteeship over the years. My hon. Friend also paid tribute to the staff, conservators and others who will do for Hampstead heath what they have done for other areas, for which they will receive praise from both sides of the House. I am sorry that working people have received implied insults from Opposition Members, but I hope that they will not receive any more.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am familiar with Highgate wood, which is well administered by the City of London and is a pleasant place. Will the Minister reflect that, under the plans, known as the east London road assessment study, put forward to his Department by consultants, part of Highgate wood would be damaged by the construction of a grade separated road? Has he received representations from the City of London on the matter and the loss of virgin forest, which was originally linked to Epping forest before the rest of north London became built up?

Mr. Bottomley: What the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss may be more properly debated in Committee tomorrow. Perhaps we shall then have the benefit of hearing from the hon. Members for Islington, North and for Leyton, as well as from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who has been sitting patiently listening to the speech of her hon. Friend the Member for Leyton on the merits of the different types of trees on the Green Man roundabout.
The Government are normally neutral about private Bills in which no major matter of principle is involved. This Bill and money resolution are exceptions. In principle, the Government strongly support the provisions of part II of the Bill which relates to the grant and exchange of lands. We are pleased to have reached agreement with the corporation of the City of London, as conservators of Epping forest, over the transfer of certain areas of forest land to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the construction of the A12 Hackney Wick to M11 link road. In exchange, the conservators have agreed to accept, for incorporation into the forest, an area of land near Wanstead park. Once that has been acquired from its owners, we shall put it into a fit state for forest use before handing it over to the conservators. The area of this land


exceeds not only that which will permanently be lost to the forest, but that which will be unavailable only during the construction period. There is a clear gain in that.

Mr. Cohen: Not to Leyton.

Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to talk during my speech. He spoke at great length himself, and if he will allow me to proceed, I shall be happy to give way to him shortly.
When the road is completed, the lid of the tunnel at George Green will be reinstated and the appearance of that green will be much as it is today. At the Green Man interchange—it is the place that most concerned the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bolsover; I await a report from both hon. Members on how they count the different types of trees—there will be a net loss of green land of about 1·25 acres, due principally to the new road running parallel to Cambridge park and to the diversion of Whipps Cross road. The surface roundabout will be smaller. Again, the tunnel lid, while remaining in the ownership of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, will be landscaped, be available for public use and dedicated to the forest. People will be able to reach it quite easily by means of the subways on the pedestrian, cyclist and equestrian route which will provide a safe link from Leyton flats to Wanstead flats.
The hon. Member for Leyton may remember our tour around the high street, where we saw the work that the Department has paid for on the A12 to make life better for his constituents, which shows our concern for them. Any suggestions to the contrary that might be inferred from his two and a half hours speech were, I am sure, unintended and due to his having been unable to find the right words. In any case, the hon. Gentleman, with his concern for vulnerable road users, will have noted that access to this central space is not regarded as particularly attractive for cyclists, equestrians or pedestrians. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell me that he often sees cyclists or horse riding around the Green Man roundabout I shall stand corrected. I do not often see them there; I do not even see pedestrians there often—

Mr. Cohen: The roundabout will still be potentially dangerous because of the Department's plans.

Mr. Bottomley: Most people accept that it will be the reverse: it will be substantially safer.
The dimensions of the subways and the surface of this part of the route have been chosen to allow horse riders passage without dismounting and without the dangers of grade crossings on busy roads. The money in this resolution covers that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate dealt with the provisions that are relevant to equestrians.
In addition, the landscaping proposals associated with the road will provide an extra 11·5 acres of green space between the Green Man interchange and Temple Mills. Just over half of it will be open to the public; all of it will he readily visible to them. Both the size of the forest and the amount of other green land in the vicinity of the route will increase as a result of construction of the road. That is in addition to the other environmental measures incorporated in the design of the road to mitigate its effects on its surroundings.
I repeat what was said in our earlier debate—that 40 per cent. of the cost of the A12 Hackney to M11 link is

devoted to environmental improvement or protection. That makes it one of the roads with the highest proportion of spending on environmental protection—

Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister compare that with the schemes that I suggested earlier in Epping and in Hatfield, not to mention others? Where are the measures to improve the environment to be implemented? They will go to Wanstead, not to Leyton or Leytonstone.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has not got it right. We must go over the matter at another public occasion, not necessarily with an enormous audience, step by step; or perhaps I can arrange a briefing for the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman is a man of generous impulse, and I am sure that he will be willing to examine carefully the details of how it is proposed to build the road in his constituency. I am sorry that he has not so far had an opportunity to do that, but it is right for me to make the opportunity available to him again. If a road is ever again proposed in his constituency, perhaps we can explain it once, or even twice, to the hon. Gentleman so that he does not need two and a half hours to tell the House about what is proposed.
The hon. Gentleman's most significant point was about the A1 motorway at Hatfield. As I explained to him when he brought his local council and the representatives of Beazers to the Department, I think one and a half years ago, the A1M proposal came from the local authority. It asked if it could, at no extra expense to the Department, cap the road and develop on top. I said to the hon. Gentleman and his associates that if that could be put forward with the link on a time scale that was compatible with the road and if the extra cost did not have to be borne by the Department, we would not only cheerfully consider it, but might think it possible.
As the debate went on, some of the earlier estimates of cost turned out to be incorrect. Although there might not have been total agreement between Beazers and the Department, there was more general agreement towards the end of the discussion than there was at the beginning about the acceptable slopes, the gradients, for the road. Of course, that affected the potential cost. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leyton because I think that he was the first London Member to raise the question of private finance for roads in London. I hope that it will be possible to build on some of the ideas that he put forward on how to get private sector contributions for better roads for the environment, for industrial access, for jobs and to reduce road casualties. Conservatives may claim the credit for those ideas, but the hon. Gentleman thought of them first.

Mr. Cohen: I shall certainly not do that again because I and Beazers got a nasty snub for taking the Government at their word. Did not the Minister's Department say to Beazers that it wanted £4 million in advance for future maintenance costs? The Department refused to accept anything less and put the kibosh on it and demanded the payment of all the costs of Atkins, the consultants. The Department even demanded its own office costs so determined was it to kill that private scheme. I shall certainly not try that again because the Government are not being honest.

Mr Bottomley: If not tonight, then perhaps tomorrow, I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that his language has been a sort of scatter gun of insults—not all


of them cheerful—to all and sundry. Some of them were directed to hon. Members but we can bear that. However, he also said some rough things about people outside and I hope that they have the kindness to recognise how deeply the hon. Gentleman feels about the matter and how mercurially he sometimes reacts to what is going on. In the original conversation with Beazers, I said to the hon. Gentleman—I think to his satisfaction—that if a proposal came forward which did not involve public expense, the Department would be keen and happy to consider it. That was the original proposal and anyone who complains that the terms have changed is looking at the matter in the wrong way.
If the hon. Member for Leyton had an unanswerable case, he could have made it in about 10 minutes. However, he was aware that his case was answerable and perhaps he kept speaking so that many hon. Members who wanted to take part in the debate were not able to do so. We have established that the size of the forest and the amount of other green land in the vicinity of the route will increase as a result of the construction of the road. That is in addition to the other environmental measures incorporated in the design of the road to mitigate its effect on its surroundings.
Anyone who has an opportunity to drive out of London on the A12 will see the impact of the existing A12 trunk road on the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He is right to be in favour of building this new road, and the fact that he wants to continue to add environmental considerations is a worthy aim. We should remember that all such issues are not covered by the Bill. The Bill and the resolution cover the exchange land, the indemnification and the compensation—the payment to the conservators of the forest. The hon. Gentleman should support the Bill, and I hope that on reflection he will realise that perhaps he was using a parliamentary tactic in voting against it. If he does not realise that, his constituents will not understand why he does not support the Bill.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I hope that we can clear up one point in this debate on the money resolution, which touches on exchange land. Will my hon. Friend the Minister make it perfectly clear that his Department will meet the reasonable costs of putting that exchange land into a condition acceptable to the City of London, so that what the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said in the previous debate about the Department being mean was as nonsensical as most of his other remarks, because it will have to meet the bills presented by the City?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Department will have to do that, but it is plain that the City of London (Various Powers) Bill is different from most private Bills. It is necessary to have this Bill to be able to make the exchange of land between the City of London and the conservators of Epping Forest. It is also necessary to have the new road to provide relief from the through traffic in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leyton. The Department will meet all the proper costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred by the City, and people will want to ensure that neither the forest nor the City is harmed by this necessary road.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: Earlier, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred

to this land as scrubby old sewage land, and we would all agree that that is right. However, is it not also right to say that the scrubbier the land, the greater will be the improvement when the Department gets hold of it?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has, characteristically, made a point briefly that the hon. Member for Leyton failed to make at some length. The land, which is virtually unusable, will be treated so that it becomes part of the forest, and in future centuries it will be looked on with pride, just as the forest and most of Hampstead, as the hon. Member for Leyton said, are now. Therefore, it is important that we extend the forest, and the net provisions of the Bill of which we are discussing the money resolution are designed to enhance the environment, to grow the forest and to make sure that life improves.

Mr. Cohen: The Minister and the House will have heard me say that I do not begrudge the development of such land for the people of Wanstead. However, can the Minister, in his heart of hearts, say that this land will benefit the people of Leyton? It is supposed to be compensation for land that is going, and it is the fault of the Department that the land is going.

Mr. Bottomley: I hope to be able to explain to the hon. Gentleman—not at great length because I do not want to fall into his manner of speaking and mode of delivery, so perhaps on paper—that there will be more land in his constituency that will be both available and on view to his constituents than there is at the moment. If we go on making these exchanges across the Floor of the House we run the risk of boring our colleagues. The interest among those on Government Benches is rather more resilient and robust. I do not want to suggest that this is only because my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is here.

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister can rest assured that there is a great deal of interest in the Bill among Opposition Members and the only problem is that they are not all here. The Minister seems to be playing one bit of land off against the other. All of us would welcome the restoration of some scrubby old sewage land into parkland or forest, but that could be done anyway, irrespective of the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is experiencing. As I understand it from visiting the area with him, the nub of his point is that he wants, and understandably so, extra parkland to compensate for the loss within the area of Waltham forest that is not some distance away. It is possible to do both things, so perhaps the Minister can address his mind to that.

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate concluded his speech with a reference to "1066 and All That". What we have in all this is the opportunity to improve Leyton and the forest. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we have the exchange right, and we have. The detailed consideration can take place in Committee. When debating the money resolution it is time to restate the areas of land to which some of the sums are related. Having done that, perhaps the House would believe it right for me to conclude my remarks.
The net loss of open space at the Green Man interchange will be about 1·25 acres. The amount of land to be brought back in Leyton high road to the Green Man at Temple Mills will be 11·5 acres. On my reckoning, that is a factor of about 10:1. That strikes me as improvement


rather than deterioration. We have already established that for equestrians, pedestrians and cyclists, the Green Man interchange will improve.
We have had it accepted that the land in the forest will be greatly improved and added to. I believe that the House will probably want to follow Second Reading by passing the money resolution, and I commend it to the House. I hope that it will be possible to continue developing the environment and the number of jobs in east London and reducing the casualties. The development is much needed. Anyone who travels through the area will know that the road that we are discussing will provide uplift. The road has been needed for the past 10 years and I hope that tonight we shall move it on its way forward.

Mr. Steve Norris: I am keen to support the money resolution and in so doing to refer to a part of the Bill, to which the resolution refers, that did not receive the exposure on Second Reading that I and many of my constituents, and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), would have liked. As I know that they wish to add their remarks to the resolution, I shall endeavour to be brief.
However, before referring specifically to the Bill I wish to pay my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) for the, as ever, competent and professional way in which he introduced the Bill on Second Reading. I pay a short tribute to my predecessor, Sir John Biggs-Davison, who took a considerable interest in the matters that we are discussing and who was a great friend of Epping forest over many years.
I have received a great deal of help in evaluating the issues that concern the great natural inheritance of Epping forest from John Bessant, the superintendent of the forest, and the members of his committee, who kindly entertained me on an extremely instructive tour of the forest. The professional advice of the City remembrancer and his staff has been of great assistance to all hon. Members who have an interest in the forest. A distinguished former Member of this place, John Harvey, offered his advice to me from an early stage of my by-election campaign, for which I am extremely grateful.
The problem that is referred to in clauses 9 and 10 impacts immediately on the money resolution. Those clauses relate to the problem of horse riding in Epping forest and how the means of repairing the damage that is caused by it should be financed. Although Epping forest is the size of Ashdown forest—Ashdown forest is probably its nearest equivalent in the south of England—it is very much nearer to London than Ashdown. It receives a degree of use that is disproportionate to its size. I understand that there are about 600 registered riders who use Ashdown forest, and the superintendent's estimate of the likely number of riders who would be licensed to use Epping forest, if such a scheme were to be introduced, would be about 2,000. That is understandable and proper because many residents in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), for example, the two Opposition Members who have had the good fortune to participate in an extraordinarily interesting debate this evening that will feature prominently in all our lives, enjoy going to the

forest. It is a marvellous lung of greenery and opportunity for recreation away from the busy city. However, there are many more of us today even than the City fathers envisaged when they rescued the forest from the depredations of enclosure.
The problem arises from overuse by a few irresponsible riders. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate identified problems in three areas. First, a few irresponsible riders are damaging the forest floor. Secondly, the forest floor is itself a vital part of the forest and its conservation is extremely important to the management of that amenity. Thirdly, a great deal of cost is attached to that exercise.
Given that clause 9 of the City of London (Various Powers) (No. 2) Bill 1971 gave the conservators the power to regulate the places that horse riders may use, we face the question of how avoiding the damage so caused should be financed, and whether riders should be made responsible for meeting at least part of that cost.
I have received, as have many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, a great deal of correspondence about the matter, which is clearly divided into two camps. The horse riders' organisations take the view that any further incursion on the right to ride in the forest would be unreasonable. There have also been substantial representations—not least a petition, fetchingly bound in green velvet by Peggy Bitten, which contains 5,000 signatures—clearly expressing the view that responsibility for horse riding in the forest should be matched by a system of registration and charging to ensure that at least part of the cost of that exercise is met by the riders themselves.
The scheme suggested by the conservators incorporates a modest charge for enjoying the forest's facilities. I am pleased that the City of London authorities indicate a likely charge of about £50 per animal. Because the charge will essentially be levied on the beast, any person who wants simply an occasional ride from the stable will not find himself having to meet the entire cost of a licence but only the equivalent of a few pence per day. I note also that a charge of £40 to £50 would not represent a significant part of the cost of maintaining a horse. The various estimates I have seen—and I thank goodness that I have no female children—suggest that the cost of keeping a horse varies between £2,000 and £4,000 per year. I could not be more pleased that none of my children has expressed the vaguest interest in horse riding, and I propose ensuring that that remains the case.
Despite the fact that there is a good case to argue for registration to catch the few irresponsible riders, and for making a charge so that part of the cost of maintaining the rides is borne by the riders themselves, it is in a sense even more important to ensure that horse riders are not unreasonably discriminated against by any of the Bill's provisions. After all, riders are as entitled to use the forest as are walkers, bird watchers, or harriers. It was for that reason that, shortly after I returned to the House. I originally blocked the Bill to ensure that proper discussion took place between the City of London authorities and the various bodies that made representations to me.
I am delighted that the City authorities have expressed a willingness to delete the proposed subsections (3A), (3B) and (3C) in clause 9, and to make provision in clause 10 for a more general scheme of registration. Those are both useful changes, which go properly hand in hand with a system of registration and charging.
I think it entirely proper for the money resolution to be approved. It adheres to a spirit clearly enunciated in the Bill that those responsible for the consequences of their leisure activities in the forest should make at least some contribution to the cost of repairing the damage. A more general principle, which I consider vital, is that while the forest is there for the enjoyment of all who wish to go about their business lawfully, engaging in their chosen recreation, the conservators' overriding responsibility is not to favour riders, walkers, bird watchers, harriers or any other group, but to ensure that the forest that we inherited is passed on to future generations in at least as good a state as that in which we found it.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am sorry that I was not able to be present for much of the Second Reading debate—as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) pointed out, I was detained elsewhere—but I think that it would have been difficult for me to catch your eye in any case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because of the interest in it.
I share the fascination of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) and many others with the history of open space in London and the south-east. It is a history of the struggle of ordinary people who wanted space for themselves. They prevented the enclosures in Epping forest, just as in my constituency radical members of the Metropolitan Board of Works obtained Highbury fields for us.
I am concerned by some aspects of the Bill, and by the expenditure prescribed in it. I well understand the problems relating to the use of Epping forest. I have visited the forest many times and enjoyed it very much, although I once had to swim in a pond there in mid-winter because my dog had been caught in a branch and was in danger of drowning. The forest is a beautiful place and, indeed, very overused.
The Bill states that the conservators will try to regulate usage by horse riders—I understand that, because of the damage that they do to the tracks in the forest—and proposes the introduction of charges, provided—I quote from clause 10(1)—
that taking one year with another the aggregate amount raised by such charges shall not exceed the reasonable costs incurred by the Conservators in undertaking the activities to which charges made under this subsection relate.
I am concerned about that, and about subsection (2), which states:
Charges made under subsection (1) above may make different provision for different cases or circumstances or different areas of Epping Forest.
An important principle is at stake here. First, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest pointed out, the forest was rescued from the enclosures for all time for the public good—for the free usage and enjoyment of ordinary people. If a charging system is introduced, we shall have departed from that important principle. What worries me even more, however, is that the wording is something of an open book. It says that the charges should amount to no more than the "reasonable costs" that the conservators may incur in the necessary works, but there appears to be very little definition of what "reasonable costs" might be. If those costs become very high and the entire cost of the works is passed on to the users—in this case, horse riders

—it may deter poorer children from schools rather than riding schools, and handicapped children, from riding and enjoying the forest in other similar ways. The Bill appears to be departing from a very important principle.

Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the introduction of charges in Epping forest. Does he not accept that riding horses is the only activity that is carried on commercially on Epping forest land that is not charged for and that very many other activities on Epping forest land attract charges?

Mr. Corbyn: Yes, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. In a sense, it emphasises rather than takes away from my point. When children in areas such as mine, which is not a particularly wealthy area, want to take up horse riding—there is no reason why they should not, because horse riding should be available for all—they find that to have to pay for riding on open lands on top of the cost of the tack and the training makes it prohibitive.

Mr. Norris: I follow the hon. Gentleman's point, which is perfectly fair. However, he will accept, I am sure, that the system that the conservators have said that they wish to adopt in respect of charging suggests that a child in the hon. Gentleman's constituency would simply hire a horse for the afternoon, in which case the child ought to be charged only for that part of the day cost of the annual allowance, which would be 10p or 12p.

Mr. Corbyn: That is fair enough, and the way that the hon. Gentleman puts it is understandable, but the wording in clause 10 is fairly open ended and does not provide the kind of guarantees that hon. Members whose constituencies border Epping forest want. When the Bill is considered in Committee I hope that the clause will be amended and tightened and that these costs will be reconsidered. We want to protect the forest and regulate its use as far as that is necessary, but we must not discriminate against the very people who use the forest. Hon. Members who represent and live in the area are fortunate to have the forest on their doorstep, but it is also on the doorstep of many other people in north London. We enjoy going there. Epping forest once extended as far as Queen's wood in Hornsey and Highgate wood and to parts of Hampstead heath. Queen's wood and Highgate wood are still virgin forest, as is Epping forest. That, in an urban area, is remarkable.
I tabled an instruction on clause 11, but it was not selected. Clause 11 provides for a change in the length of the fencing of the Blackfriars underpass footpath from 1,200 ft to 1,282 ft. That extension of the fencing will prevent the footpath from being used. The City of London (Various Powers) Act 1977 authorised the construction of the Blackfriars underpass. The change would make the area very pedestrian unfriendly. Many people who travel by train to Blackfriars go to the Mermaid theatre in the evenings. The area between the City of London and the City of Westminster is becoming a motorway. We should not encourage high-speed traffic if there is little pedestrian access to neighbouring buildings. An urban motorway in that area should not be allowed to develop.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I appreciate why the hon. Gentleman could not be here earlier, when I went to some trouble to explain the clause. I made the point that there is no access to buildings from this so-called pedestrian way, which is highly dangerous, and that there are plenty of other ways of reaching the buildings to which the hon.


Gentleman refers without going along a very narrow pedestrian path that would cause danger to both pedestrians and road users.

Mr. Corbyn: I understand that. I repeat my apology for not being able to be here earlier. I have tried to walk along that piece of pavement and I concede that it is very dangerous. My general point is that I do not like the idea of separating roads and pedestrians in that type of urban area because it creates traffic problems in the future.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Most of us would like traffic to be buried wherever possible. That is where the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I agree. It is probably best to give the whole road space to pedestrians. It may be possible to reverse the hierarchy in that way in areas that do not have to carry through traffic. One of the best courses is to do what the City has done, which is take traffic away from people and give people back the space.

Mr. Corbyn: That would be nice, but I can think of many parts of the City that are choked all day with unpleasant exhaust fumes. Some of the beauties of the City, such as the areas around the Guildhall, St. Paul's and the Monument, are unpleasant to visit. I often take visitors there, but they frequently want to leave quickly because it is not pleasant to visit such an environment. I hope that we can get more traffic out of the City rather than attract more into it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has also tabled an instruction, but he is unwell. He telephoned me this morning. His instruction, which was tabled on Friday, concerns the draft strategic guidance for London, which has been issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is now saying to the money resolution. He must address his comments to that resolution.

Mr. Corbyn: I understand the need to speak to the costs of the Bill. My hon. Friend wants to include in the Bill a provision which would lead to expenditure on the protection of ancient monuments in the City. My hon. Friend is anxious about the palace of the Roman governor of London, Julius Agricola. I hope that there will be an opportunity to raise such issues in Committee. What has happened today at the Rose theatre in Southwark shows that there is enormous feeling among ordinary people that our history should be preserved and not have speculative office blocks built on it.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that there is strong feeling among the people of Walthamstow that the Bill should be passed so that the forest floor in that part of Epping forest which is in my constituency is no longer cut up by riders?

Mr. Corbyn: I am not sure that there is unanimity in the borough of Waltham Forest on that matter.

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 19.

Division No. 200]
[11.8 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Amess, David
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Amos, Alan
Jessel, Toby


Arbuthnot, James
Knapman, Roger


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Lilley, Peter


Atkinson, David
Livsey, Richard


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Lord, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Maclean, David


Bendall, Vivian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mans, Keith


Boswell, Tim
Marlow, Tony


Bottomley, Peter
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Miller, Sir Hal


Bowis, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Brazier, Julian
Neale, Gerrard


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Norris, Steve


Buck, Sir Antony
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Burns, Simon
Paice, James


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Rathbone, Tim


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Carrington, Matthew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Chapman, Sydney
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Speller, Tony


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Stern, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Stevens, Lewis


Cope, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Couchman, James
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Summerson, Hugo


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Day, Stephen
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Dorrell, Stephen
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Durant, Tony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Thorne, Neil


Emery, Sir Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Fallon, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Wallace, James


Fishburn, John Dudley
Waller, Gary


Forman, Nigel
Wells, Bowen


Forth, Eric
Wheeler, John


Freeman, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Gale, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Wood, Timothy


Gill, Christopher
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Gregory, Conal



Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hague, William
Mr. David Lightbown and


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Harris, David



NOES


Allen, Graham
Meale, Alan


Cohen, Harry
Michael, Alun


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Pike, Peter L.


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Ruddock, Joan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skinner, Dennis


Gordon, Mildred
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Haynes, Frank



McAvoy, Thomas
Tellers for the Noes:


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


McLeish, Henry
Mr. Harry Barnes.


Marek, Dr John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the City of London (Various Powers) Bill, It is expedient to authorize the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—

(a) in reinstating certain land in Epping Forest temporarily occupied by him by virtue of that Act for road purposes;


(b) in reimbursing the Conservators of Epping Forest for such proportion of the costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred and properly paid by them in connection with the preparation, obtaining and passing of that Act as is attributable to its provisions relating to the grant to him for road purposes of rights over and interests in land; and
(c) in indemnifying the Conservators against actions, costs, claims and demands brought or made against or incurred by them which are caused by or arise out of the grant of those rights and interests and which are not attributable to the wrongful act, neglect or default of the Conservators, their contractors, agents, workmen or servants.

Taxation of Savings

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4763/89 relating to taxation of savings; and supports the Government's view that the proposals are unnecessary, ineffective and damaging.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can help me. The document that we are debating, No. 4763/89, is printed partly in the French language and some of the information contained in it is not in the English part of the document. It provides additional information that is not available in the English part. Is it in order for us to debate a document that is printed partly in a language other than English?
My second point of order relates to Standing Order No. 109, which states:
No document received by the clerk of a select committee shall be … altered without the knowledge and approval of the committee.
My understanding is that the document considered by the Select Committee on European Legislation was wholly in the English language, whereas the one that we have obtained from the Table Office is partly in French. I wonder whether you could give us some guidance, because my understanding is that when the matter was raised previously, in the early 1900s when another language was used in the House, it was declared to be out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The matter is in order. The Standing Order which the hon. Gentleman has quoted does not apply to the House, but the points that he is making are perfectly legitimate ones to make in the debate.

Mr. Tony Marlow;: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Of course, I shall take the point of order, but I remind the House that the debate has started and that we are cutting into debating time.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify the ruling that you have just given? It is not likely to happen, but were it to happen that the document upon which the debate was based was totally in a foreign language, are you saying that the debate would go ahead?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am saying that there is nothing in the Standing Orders to cover this matter in relation to debates in the House. But these are perfectly legitimate matters to raise during the debate.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: As a historian, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that in the past hon. Members have been ruled out of order for making parts of their speeches in a foreign language—especially Mr. David Lloyd George, then a rising Welsh Back-Bench Member—

Mr. Alex Carlile: It was not a foreign language.

Mr. Aitken: He was ruled out of order for using a tongue other than the English language. Since your


predecessors have ruled out of order the speaking of Welsh, why is it in order for someone to refer to these documents in French?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are not dealing with speeches in the House. I was asked about the language of documents, and I made clear what the Standing Orders cover. But I repeat that these are legitimate points to make in the debate.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point, and I cannot see that any points of order arise.

Mr. Lilley: It may be for the convenience of the House if I address it in English—

Mr. Marlow: If it is not proper to use a foreign language in debate, is it possible, is it proper and is it in order to read extracts from this document, which happens to be in a foreign language, during the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is hypothetical.
I should say that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment.

Mr. Lilley: I shall speak in English, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Government believe that the Commission's proposals for a compulsory withholding tax Community-wide are unnecessary, ineffective and damaging. The origin of the proposals lies in the capital liberalisation directive which required the Commission to support proposals on reducing tax evasion and required the Council to take a position by the end of June. But it did not require the Council to accept those proposals. It specified clearly that acceptance would require unanimity, and the implementation of the remainder of the capital liberalisation directive, with the eventual abolition of exchange controls throughout the Community, in no way depends upon agreement on those proposals.
There are plenty of arguments of principle—no doubt we shall hear them this evening—and plenty of reasons why the House may not wish to give up its sovereign right to impose taxes or not to impose them. In any case, the practical arguments against the proposal are overwhelming. In the first place, it is clearly unnecessary. We can easily understand the fears of countries that are about to abolish exchange controls that abolition may give rise to an outflow of funds to evade taxation. Those fears were expressed in the House when exchange controls were abolished in 1979, but our experience provides no evidence to suggest that the abolition of exchange controls is likely to be followed by a significant outflow of tax avoidance funds.
Germany, which has had no exchange controls for a long time, had no measurable problem of outflow of tax avoidance funds until it imposed a withholding tax. That shows that it is not capital liberalisation but the very imposition of a withholding tax that leads to an outflow of tax avoidance funds.
Moreover, those who are prepared to evade their countries' tax laws are likely to have been prepared also to avoid their exchange controls before they were abolished.
In addition, a network of double taxation agreements between countries, including the United Kingdom, largely meets the requirements of minimising tax evasion.
We believe that the proposal will also be ineffective. It contains several loopholes that will enable people to avoid paying tax. It rightly specifies that there will be no withholding tax on Eurobonds and contains a rather imprecise proposal that there should be no tax on interest to commercial companies. There is also the possibility of not having a withholding tax on small savings.
More important than that, it is quite clear that those who wish to avoid paying the withholding tax can simply put their money outside the Community altogether. New York, for example, has no withholding tax and in Switzerland fiduciary deposits attract no withholding tax. No doubt if the Community went ahead and imposed such a tax, tax havens would spring up around it like mushrooms over night. They would be the welcoming recipients of funds from the Community.
The ambition is expressed in the directive not only that the Community should establish a withholding tax but that agreement should be reached that all other countries should do likewise. That is wholly unrealistic and represents a tacit admission that, without such agreement globally, the proposal would merely lead to funds being diverted outside the Community.
It is a damaging proposal, not just because it would lead to an outflow of tax avoidance funds but because it would lead to an outflow of perfectly legitimate funds and, indeed, to the non-retention of funds from abroad because, although they are not subject to withholding tax in principle, many foreign holders of funds will not wish to go through the process of identifying themselves, reclaiming tax and going through the bureaucratic procedures necessary once a withholding tax exists.

Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend accept that the secret reason, the secret agenda, the real reason for this proposal for a withholding tax is not because the European Commission thinks that a withholding tax is a good, natural, decent or reasonable tax? It is a stalking horse. What they want is other European sources of finance. They are trying this one out now, and if they do not get this one, they will try another one.

Mr. Lilley: That may be one of the motives. Ours is not to speculate about the motives but merely to determine whether it is a desirable proposal. I believe it to be a damaging proposal.
The other problem—apart from the outflow of perfectly legitimate funds and the outflow of funds from abroad—is that such a tax would drive financial markets abroad. That is a more serious problem from Britain's point of view. A withholding tax is incompatible with the operation of many commercial wholesale financial markets. Deposits change hands frequently and it is virtually impossible to keep track of the identity of those who own them, to whom the interest is payable and whether they are residents and therefore liable to withholding tax or non-residents and therefore not liable.
Where a discount is payable that diminishes over time, which many financial instruments enjoy, it is difficult to tell who the declining discount is attributable to and who not and therefore how a withholding tax could be levied on it. There are numerous other difficulties in the operation of the wholesale markets that are incompatible with the


workings of such a tax and that is extremely important to the United Kingdom as it has the largest and most successful wholesale markets.
The German experience demonstrates emphatically that the views expressed are not alarmist but practical and empirically verified. Preceding the imposition of the withholding tax in Germany in January and during the subsequent four months there has been a massive outflow of capital. As a result, an interest rate differential has been established whereby it is more expensive to borrow deutschmarks in Germany than it is outside that country. Germany has therefore done itself the disservice of raising the cost of borrowing to its Government, industry and people relative to those abroad who borrow deutschmarks. The German banks put the cost of imposing the withholding tax at about $420 million. Small wonder that the Germans have decided to abandon the experiment of withholding tax and, on Friday, came out against the idea of a European-wide withholding tax.
Opposition to the proposal is widespread not just in this country from the British Bankers Association and Building Societies Association, but from individual institutions in the financial market. The European equivalent to the Confederation of British Industry has said that it thinks that the withholding tax
could turn out to be more harmful than the illness it was meant to cure
and that it would inevitably lead to a flight of capital from Europe.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can my hon. Friend explain how the withholding tax would work in relation to British building societies that have special interest rate arrangements?

Mr. Lilley: At present we have a composite rate tax on deposits in building societies and banks up to £50,000. Over and above that, although the holder of such deposits is liable to tax, we do not withhold it at source as such large sums are often mobile, involved in rapid financial transactions and therefore difficult to follow. The liability remains, but no CRT above that £50,000.

Mr. Taylor: How would the withholding tax work on British building society accounts?

Mr. Lilley: If the proposal were implemented, we would be required to impose a withholding tax, not just the present one of 21 per cent. up to £50,000, but at least 15 per cent. on all deposits, including those above £50,000.
The United Kingdom has argued consistently, on the basis of its experience, against the proposal and our arguments have been making increasing headway. We have been joined by Luxembourg and the Netherlands in opposing the directive and now most emphatically by the Germans. Criticisms have also been expressed by Greece and Portugal, which are particularly worried about its impact on remittances from emigrants, and the Irish Republic is also critical.
The German decision to suspend its own withholding tax from July of this year effectively delivers the coup de grace—if I am allowed to use that phrase in this debate —to the proposal. Those who persist in pursuing the idea are rather like the German philosopher Hegal who, on being told that his scientific theories had been refuted by the facts, declared:
So much the worse for the facts".

The German experience with its withholding tax has proved emphatic and final.
Fortunately, the Commissioner responsible for taxation, Madame Scrivener, has declared herself to be pragmatic and flexible and I believe that she will not long detain the Commission or deflect the Community with the proposal from the more important objective of completing the single market. I hope that the House will send a clear message to the Community that it does not believe that the Community's interests will be best served by a withholding tax of this kind.

Mr. Chris Smith: We are, effectively, discussing two documents. The first deals with the proposals for withholding tax and the second with the proposals for co-operation to combat tax evasion on investment income.
The Opposition approach the document on withholding tax with considerable scepticism and caution. We share many of the Government's concerns about the proposal. We take a more sympathetic view of the second document than do the Government.
The Commission's aims for withholding tax initially sound laudable. First, it aims to ensure that the differences between the tax regimes of member countries do not distort and impede the process of capital movement liberalisation. Secondly, it aims to promote genuine, cross-frontier competition in financial services. With the approach of 1992 and the prospect that Britain's financial services industry could take a substantial share of European activity in the financial services sector, genuine cross-frontier competition is important.
Thirdly, the Commission says that it wishes to acknowledge that complete harmonisation is
neither necessary nor desirable at the moment.
Finally, it says that it wishes to maintain the internal balance of the systems for the taxation of income in the different member states. I shall return to that point, because it is crucial to the argument about our response to the document. The Opposition fear that the proposed directive does not secure the aims that the Commission says that it will.
Our concerns are fivefold. First, we believe that the internal balance of systems of taxation is extremely important. The directive might provide the possibility of upsetting the internal balance which this Parliament might seek through the British taxation systems. We have criticisms of the present internal balance struck by the Government. We were discussing that precise point only last Wednesday in relation to the extremely generous provision which the Government are currently making for the tax provisions on equity saving, as opposed to other forms of saving. However, it is important for us to preserve the possibility of striking a balance which might be different from that sought by the commission.
We do not have any quarrel with the principle of a witholding tax, but we might, as a country, wish to consider the establishment of thresholds that might fall foul of such a directive. We might wish to seek differences between different forms of saving and their tax treatment. In addition, we might wish to use the tax system to promote industrial investment by means of individual contribution. All those possibilities might, in some circumstances, be ruled out by the provisions of the


proposed directive. We believe that it is important, within the internal balance of our taxation system, to preserve considerable flexibility.
Secondly, we fear that the loopholes that the Commission suggests—the Economic Secretary spelt this out—provide the opportunity for a coach and horses to be driven through its own proposals. Such loopholes include the exemptions for particularly designated savings income, for the vague attribution of industrial or commercial income, for residents of third countries and for international loans, such as Eurobonds. Those loopholes provide a fundamental insecurity to the system which they seek to establish.
Thirdly, we must recognise that the option would remain open to Governments —even if such a directive were brought in—to use interest rates as a financial market booster if flexibility in fiscal measures were removed. The temptation to switch from the use of fiscal policy to monetary policy would become greater under such a system.
Fourthly, we are worried that it appears from the documents that, in one respect, the Commission wishes to treat capital gains in some respects as pure investment income. There is a strong argument for treating income from whatever source in similar fiscal ways. There is a bias in the United Kingdom fiscal system against earned income; it should be rectified, but we are not sure whether article 2(2) of the directive is the right way in which to go about that.
Finally, we are concerned that there are practical difficulties for the wholesale markets, as the Economic Secretary outlined, and that the directive might well impede the efficient operation of those markets.
We have a number of serious doubts about the contents of the proposed directive on withholding tax. Accordingly, we shall not seek to divide the House, because we share the Government's doubts on the issue. However, the Government are being too alarmist in believing that such a proposal will have an adverse impact on the City and financial institutions. One is tempted to ask whether they can stand up to a world of competition on equal terms. If they can, they should not be worried by provisions such as these. Nevertheless, our doubts require careful discussion with other member states.
We take a rather more robust view of the second document, on co-operation to combat tax evasion, than the Government. We do not believe there is an absolute necessity to link to the proposals. The second document could he implemented, with modifications, before the first. It seems entirely sensible that member states should remove administrative barriers to the exchange of information in order to assist the process of identifying and clamping down on tax evasion. The document goes out of its way to stress that there should be no attempt to breach doctrines of bank confidentiality, but within administrative practices it identifies scope for greater co-operation. The Government should consider in their response not only the administrative burdens that that might place on the Inland Revenue but the possibility of advantage to our Inland Revenue from information gathered by other member countries' revenue departments.
The problem with the Government's response becomes clearest in their explanatory memorandum:

The Government is concerned that … the use of tax investigation resources may be dictated by overseas priorities to the detriment of domestic priorities.
What domestic priorities? It is quite clear that our Government have devoted far too little attention to cutting out tax evasion. They have not given sufficient resources to the Inland Revenue to enable it to tackle tax fraud. Only last Wednesday, during the debate on the Finance Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) pointed to the considerable manpower losses in the Inland Revenue that the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service has identified.
A total of 260 tax inspectors left the Inland Revenue in 1987–88 and 170 left in the previous year. Let us be quite clear. The average yield of a grade 7 tax inspector undertaking accounts work in one of the specialised tax offices dealing with, in this instance, large commercial firms was almost £1 million per head in 1987–88. Loss of manpower within the Inland Revenue is serious and we know that even before the relative decline in Inland Revenue staffing, the Revenue was understaffed.
The Government have been dragging their feet on the need to crack down harder on tax evasion. That is in sharp contrast to the approach by the Department of Social Security. It is a classic case of one law rigorously pursued for the poor and another languorously applied to the rich. The directive would help in a small way to improve our performance and the performance of other member states in tackling tax evasion. We urge the Government to support it rather more enthusiastically than they appear to be doing.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We should welcome straightaway this very tough motion submitted by the Government because it appears to indicate a change of attitude. I welcome that, and I think that all those who take a genuine interest in the European Community will also welcome it. In the motion the Government condemn as unnecessary, ineffective and damaging a proposal which, I understand, all the Ministers in the Council agreed to ask for only 12 months ago.
We have got a major change. Twelve months ago we wanted a proposal to be considered and now we quite rightly say that it is ineffective, damaging and nonsense. It would be a mistake not to welcome what is obviously a clear change of heart by the Government on the presentation of this mass of crazy Eurodocuments which push forward bureaucracy, harmonisation and Socialism and, unfortunately, force them on the people of Britain.
Secondly, it is utterly and completely ludicrous that an important proposal by the Common Market for new taxes on savings should be discussed at a quarter to 12 at night. In a rather controversial speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said he thought that there was an attempt to mislead the public on the nature of the European Community. I can understand how he and others might feel, because the people of Britain are not being told what is going on in the European Community. I wish to goodness that they were and that my right hon. Friends the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and the Prime Minister and everyone else would tell people what was happening in the European Community and how it affected them.
At a quarter to 12 at night we are debating this important new measure. Tomorrow after 10 o'clock there


will be another important new measure and there will be another on Wednesday after 10 o'clock. The people of Britain will hear little, if anything, about what is being proposed and what, in some cases, is being forced on them, whether they like it or not, by the majority vote of the European Community.

Mr. Marlow: And in French.

Mr. Taylor: As my hon. Friend says, we now have these things partly in French.
The Minister has rightly said that he thinks he can stop this. Mr. Jacques Delors has correctly said that, as a result of the Single European Act, about 80 per cent. of a significant part of the laws that we normally approve will effectively be taken over by the Common Market and that the majority of member states will decide on laws to be applied in Britain, whether or not the Parliament or the Government like them.
The Minister has said that this is one of the 20 per cent. on which we have unanimity, but we had this before. The Speaker's Counsel told us that there was unanimity on the summer time order, and the Common Market could not force it on us. There was no doubt about it. However, then the Commissioner of the Common Market presented a proposal, under article 100A, which we thought was unlawful and that our legal advice agreed was unlawful, but it still happened. The only way to stop that is to get the 12 member states to agree that the EEC Commission is wrong.
I am delighted with the stand that the Minister has taken on this most dreadful proposal for nonsensical bureaucracy, coming from the EEC. However, is he confident that there is no way that the EEC could ask for a majority vote? We have to think of the proposals of the court. As my hon. Friend is aware, to our cost, we have had the court forcing taxes on Britain. I am delighted to see that the Prime Minister is against the Common Market imposing new taxes on us, but it has been doing it through the court. For example, the new tax of VAT on spectacles and hearing aids was forced on Britain not because our Government or Parliament wanted it but because the court told us that we had to do it. In the same way, the proposals to impose taxes on industry and commerce, on electricity, gas, water and sewage and all new industrial buildings were carried through not because our Government or Parliament wanted to do it, but because the court told us to do it. I should like the Minister to make it abundantly clear—we know that he takes a deep interest in these matters—that there is no way in which this ludicrous arrangement can be forced on Britain if we do not want it.
Will my hon. Friend say something about what is planned, in case it is forced on us? I can remember sitting here listening to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), then a Treasury Minister, telling us that the Common Market would never abolish our zero rates of VAT, but he was wrong, not because he cheated or lied but because the Common Market moves all the time and takes more and more power.
The Minister will be aware of what "interest" is, as defined by this proposal. It is:
premium, prizes or the difference between issue and redemption prices on discount instruments.
Does that mean that prizes from premium bonds will be affected by this income tax? Does it mean that when people

buy Government bonds at a discount, someone will work out the difference between what they buy them at and what the repayment prices are, and they will have to pay their Eurotax on this? What does it mean by "prizes"? It says here that prizes will be subject to the withholding tax. Are we talking about raffles? What are we talking about? I hope that the Minister will give us a clear idea about what we can look forward to.
The same is true of building societies. In view of what the Minister said, I am sure that many of the honest people in Britain who have saved for their retirement and have money in a building society will be worried about what the Common Market is planning to do. My hon. Friend should also give us some idea about what will happen with the overseas territories of the EEC.
People should know about these things but they do not. These orders are taken at midnight and no one knows about them. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is nodding his head. He knows about it. We are having debates about how we will not allow people to come here from Hong Kong, but only yesterday we heard that people from the Portuguese colony next door to Hong Kong will be able to come here without any restriction.

Mr. A. J. Keith: Yes.

Mr. Taylor: That is the result of Common Market legislation, which the Liberals always supported enthusiastically. I am not blaming them for it because lots of people are responsible for this. Many such things are happening, and people do not know about them.
I am delighted that the Government are getting tough with the Common Market. We have had crazy proposals. It has let us down on every pledge. I remember all the talk about controlling spending, an issue on which the Prime Minister fought so hard. The Court of Auditors report spoke of the promised 3 per cent. increase in spending, which became a 20 per cent. increase because of fiddles.
I remember all the talk about the reforms of the CAP, but they never happened, and they never will happen, because we cannot reform the CAP. The Government seem to be waking up to the nonsense, the bureaucracy, the waste and the Socialism of Europe, and we should all say hooray. I am sure that I carry hon. Members on both sides of the House with me when I say that people have got to be told. We know that the Prime Minister will be tough on the Common Market, but the people must be told what the issues are.
The people will want to know whether the balance of trade with the Common Market is dreadful, good or horrifying. Most people do not know. People will want to know how much money we are paying into the Common Market. They would like to know now, but they do not. That is because no one is telling them.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, an excellent Treasury Minister, will say, "Yes, we shall try to do all in our power to reject this Common Market rubbish. Yes, we shall tell the people of Britain what is happening." If that happens, we shall hear no more complaints from my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup or from anyone else. If the people are told what is happening, they will back the Government 100 per cent. in trying to stop this flood of bureaucratic, costly and Socialist Eurononsense.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) warned us of bogeymen hidden in corners and even claimed a convert to his view in the Prime Minister's latest stance on Europe. I do not think that she Is a total convert. As I understand it, she still believes that we should be a member of the Community. However, she seems to be having difficulty accepting some of the implications of that. It is, of course, no part of accepting the implications to assume that every proposal that emanates from the Commission is correct.
The proposal that is before us is directed to a problem that we would be foolish to deny exists. There could be substantial capital flows arising out of differential tax regimes in different countries and substantial tax evasion. However, having referred to that problem, the Commission advances a procedure are that is unlikely to solve it. Indeed, in some respects it may make it significantly worse. These seem to be good reasons for sending the Commission back to the drawing board and saying, "You will not solve the problem this way so you had better look for another way of tackling it."
I am saying that the problem will not be solved for several reasons. First, the Commission's proposal is likely to generate capital movements all of its own. As the Minister said, the Germans found out about that. Such movements will probably be outside the Community. There are substantial loopholes within the proposal by its very nature. The Eurobond is the most significant example of that. Another example is the proposal in paragraph 18(iii) that
Member States would be free not to apply the withholding tax to tax-exempt savings income (savings books and other common forms of saving)".
These savings will differ in about every country in the Community. It would be open to someone in Britain to take out every sort of tax-free saving in every different European country. In many instances different proposals would be used to encourage saving in different member countries. Someone who took that course would not have to pay any withholding tax on these savings. By this process he could accumulate a pretty substantial slice of income that would not attract the withholding tax. There is a series of loopholes of that sort.
There would be the enormous complexity of the clearing house mechanism, which would collect the tax at the withholding tax level at, say, 15 per cent. The member Governments would still have to maintain the differential between the withholding tax arid the level at which they choose to tax savings. There is an obvious differential in Britain between the withholding tax level and the current composite rate that applies to bank and building society accounts.
It could be argued that the Commission's proposal represents a further limitation on that sometimes forgotten group, the non-taxpayers, whose members are receiving rather a raw deal at present. It is difficult now for an elderly non-taxpayer with age relief to find anywhere to put his savings where income tax is not deducted at source. National Savings represent an exception, but they would probably be exempt under the Commission's proposal. The offshore account is a reasonable proposition for someone who would not be liable for tax and who does not want to go through the process of having to reclaim tax, still less to have to pay tax that he cannot reclaim.
What would be the position, under the proposals that we are considering, of offshore accounts in the Isle of Man or the Channel isles? Both the Isle of Man and the Channel isles have association with the Community. What would be the position of offshore accounts in those territories under the withholding tax proposal?
The Commission's proposal is not a sensible way of tackling the problem. Therefore, we must consider the options. The alternative to avoiding substantial tax evasion is more information sharing between member states. To that extent, the mutual assistance directive seems to me more welcome than the Government suggest. Their tortuous argument that tax inspectors will suddenly be preoccupied with worrying about tax avoiders from Germany rather than with those in Britain is extraordinary. Mutual assistance is a reciprocal arrangement in which part of the burden of dealing with each other's tax evasion problems is shared. There is an element of that in all the bilateral tax arrangements we make with numerous other countries.
I am intrigued to know why the Government have, as I understand it, taken a hostile view of the joint OECD and Council of Europe proposal, which embraces a much greater number of countries, on the sharing of information. If information sharing is to be as effective as possible, it might best be backed by compulsory disclosure and total reporting of a kind that a number of member countries strongly resist because of their traditions of bank secrecy. Sometimes I think that right hon. and hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Southend, East should remember that other member states also hold strong views on practices that they do not think the Community as a whole should adopt. Looked at from the British perspective, it seems odd to us that the pattern should be preserved in some member states in which substantial tax evasion can occur with the knowledge of the banks, and without there being any communication between them and those countries' tax authorities.
The proposed information sharing mechanisms offer a reasonable way of tackling tax evasion without introducing other, even more serious, distortions of capital flows than the measure now before the House is designed to solve. I am more hostile to the withholding tax proposal than even the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), when he spoke on behalf of the Labour party in the new, responsible Euro-Labour party mould with a very wise and statesmanlike speech.
I do not merely have reservations about the EC's proposal but I think that it is plain wrong. The Government should resist it, but take a more co-operative approach to information sharing and to other measures for dealing with tax evasion, to avoid trapping Britain in a cumbersome mechanism that will create more problems than it solves.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Over the years the Government and I have had our differences on European issues, but may I say how much I congratulate the Government on the motion that they have put before the House. It is succinct, it is to the point, it is the model of a motion.
I will endeavour to put this particular measure in the context of the debate which, if it has not started in the United Kingdom, jolly well should be started with the


European elections coming up. Yesterday, there was an elderly gentleman on our television screens—an elderly gentleman suffering from delusions of grandeur. It was of course my right hon. Friend "L'Europe c'est moi." He told us—whether we want it or not, whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not—that we in this country are now members of, part of, subsumed within, the united states of Europe.
Even allowing for the source of that advice, that comment showed a breathtaking arrogance. It was justified on the basis that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), along with a gentleman named Goebbels and 10 other individuals, signed this, in many ways offensive, piece of paper—the Single European Act. It is that document that has spawned the measure we are talking about this evening.
The one saving grace of this document is that it requires that this measure should be adopted not by majority vote, as so many of our laws are adopted, but by unanimity. Yesterday we were told that the treaty is important. But this House is important and the British people are important. This House and the British people have never agreed to be part of, to be subsumed in, a united states of Europe. Elderly gentlemen sometimes make mistakes. They get out of touch. In this case, this particular right hon. elderly gentleman is totally in touch. That is a rugby expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, meaning that he is off the field of play.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was somewhat more tactful. He said, "You cannot actually choose the bits of Europe that you like: you cannot have your Europe a la carte." Why not? If it is in our interests and we have the power to secure those bits that will benefit our country and the British people, why not have them? Certain issues in Europe are decided by unanimity. If a proposal is put forward that requires unanimity—such as the one that we are discussing—and we do want it, why not kick it out? If a proposal comes up for majority voting and we are in favour of it—if by manipulation, manoeuvre and argument we can get it through, and if it is in Britain's interests—why not have it?
There are good parts to Europe, and there are bad parts. The good parts include the single European market, of which I am sure that most hon. Members are in favour: free trade in goods and general benefits all round. Another good part is political co-operation. Any part in which we have interests in common and can work together sensibly is good. But this measure, this withholding tax, is one of the bad parts of Europe. There are other bad parts which should be seen alongside it. There is the European social charter, which would place massive burdens on our industry and on European industry. It would return to the industry of this country many of the disastrous apparatus that the Government have taken such a long time to get rid of.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley says that we cannot have Europe a la carte. I think that he ought to answer the question whether he wants this measure—the withholding tax—and whether he wants the European social charter. If that is what he wants, let him explain the benefits to us.
Another bad European measure has been put before the House, similar in badness to the measure that we are

debating tonight. We debated the subject of smoking in public places. The European Commission, God bless us, felt that it was time that Europe took competence over such an issue. I suppose that the theory is that if one sits in a public lavatory chain-smoking in Dover, it will pollute the pastures of the French peasants in the Pas de Calais. Such little things please such little minds in the European Commission, and this is one such issue.
Why the withholding tax? We have no need for a withholding tax. What is the motive for the proposal? Why harmonise?

Mr. Ian Taylor: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend is saying about withholding tax, with which most hon. Members appear to disagree. Will he recognise, however, that the motivation for the proposal was the much greater benefit to the Community provided by the agreement of the French and the Italians—against their better judgment—to remove their own obstacles to capital movements? In other words, they were going to abolish exchange controls, an event which I am sure that my hon. Friend will also welcome.

Mr. Marlow: I think that we all welcome that event, but as I read and understand the treaty, it was going to happen anyway. Everyone was committed to the removal of constraints on capital flows. There was no general commitment in favour of the withholding tax, however. If we can get the good, why put up with the bad as well?
Why, then, did the Commission want to introduce the withholding tax? Why did it want to harmonise taxes? A harmonised tax is a European tax. Any tax that is harmonised is potentially a source of European finance. What we must decide is whether we believe that taxes should be raised by Europe or within the nation states of Europe. I believe, and I think that the House believes, that we should raise our own taxes and spend our own money.
Why? First, we have had very bad experiences of money that is raised for Europe and spent by Europe. The main area of European expenditure is, of course, the common agricultural policy, and day after day we read stories of how it is riddled with fraud and the money is wasted. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has told the House on many occasions that half the money spent on the common agricultural policy is spent on the storage and destruction of food. European policies are extravagant and wasteful and they spawn a great deal of criminal activity. That is another reason why we should not have a withholding tax.
The vast majority of the British people and the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members believe that as we are in Europe we should stay in Europe, work with Europe and make Europe work. But that is a Europe of nation states, not a united states of Europe. A small minority is in favour of a united states of Europe, but if we start having more European levels of taxation we shall have more European levels of expenditure and we shall also move across the threshold from a Europe of nation states to a centralised, bureaucratic, Socialist united states of Europe. Let me explain why.
If Europe gets involved in personal levels of taxation the—level of tax that is charged to entrepreneurs—and if Europe gets involved in corporate taxation and controls the taxes that are paid by industry and commerce, there will be a tendency for them to be centralised at a high level in order to provide resources and scope for more


European policies. If the national Governments and national Parliaments of the nation states of Europe maintain the right, the power and the ability to raise their own taxes, they will tend to compete one with another. Instead of having high levels of European tax there will be low levels of national tax. If there are low levels of national tax, there is only one way that we can succeed. That is through growth—through giving scope to business, enterprise, commerce and industry.
If we want to have a prosperous Europe in the 21st century, national Governments and national Parliaments must decide what taxes are to be levied and how they are to be levied. If we move in the direction of centralised European taxation—of this withholding tax—or of any other areas of European taxation, we shall move towards the nightmare that has so often and so accurately been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East of a centralised, bureaucratic, Socialist united states of Europe.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I have listened very carefully to what has been said, including what was said by the Minister and the hon. Members for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). It is the same old story. As the hon. Member for Southend, East said, here we go again, late at night, and it will happen again and again. It is high time we put a stop to it. The House should grab this one by the hair and do something about it. Ministers do not appear to be prepared to do anything about it. The Economic Secretary says that he disagrees with everything that his hon. Friends say. If there were to be a Division on the amendment, he would vote against it. I agree with the amendment, but it has not been selected. Had it been selected, the -Minister would have voted against it.
The Minister is not always here when we discuss EEC matters. He is tucked up in bed, nice and warm. But some of us are here until the early hours of the morning discussing EEC matters. [Interruption.] The Government Whip is here, too. It is not often that I agree with him, but I agree with him tonight. He is here, too, until the early hours of the morning, along with some of my right and hon. Friends.
We are sick to death about what is going on. It is high time that it stopped. The Minister tells us what to do about taxation, but we can deal with that problem ourselves without the EEC telling us what to do. What help does the EEC intend to give us to carry out that job? The ordinary working class folk of this nation pay their tax automatically; it is deducted at source. That applies to Members of Parliament, too. His pay is taxed before he gets it. [Interruption.] I did not intervene when the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was on his feet. He is a pro-European. He agrees with everything that they say, coming across that flipping water. We have had enough of it.

Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Haynes: No, but I will in a minute. Dr. Death, who usually sits a bit further down this Bench, is always pushing about the European monetary system. A lot of us do not agree with it. He can keep pressing if he likes—he is one of a minute group. There are only three of them here.
A lot of hon. Members disagree with some of what is being proposed. I often disagree with what the Minister says.

Mr. Beith: I am having difficulty following the current Labour party stance. The hon. Gentleman is a Labour Whip. I listened to his Front Bench spokesman say that the directive on sharing information is welcome and that the Labour party understands the motivation behind the other, although it has some reservations about it. That does not seem to add up to the view that the hon. Gentleman is presenting—that Europe should not be considering these issues arid that we can manage by ourselves. [Interruption.]

Mr. Haynes: Now we have Pembroke yawping. He disagrees with everything that Opposition Members say. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will not get me to fall out with my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. That one was tried when we debated smoking, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North said. A Conservative Member tried to get me to criticise one of my lovely hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Once again, the Minister was tucked up all nice and warm between the sheets while we were here working.
I am expressing my own point of view here. I am entitled to do that if I want to. I represent an electorate of 66,000 and a population of more than 100,000. I am speaking on their behalf. I know what they say to me about taxation and the unfairness of it. We do not need Europe to tell us how to deal with our taxation. We can do it ourselves. The Minister is nodding. Does he agree that the House should be allowed to determine the destiny of its people and not be told what to do from across the water? Will the Minister get up and say so? He will not, because he agrees with many of the instructions that come from across the water. That is his problem. He will not get up and be honest like me and say, "I do not accept those things which they tell us we should be doing. We determine it. We decide." [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) may laugh, but his grandfather would not have laughed. I am talking about a serious matter. He knows who I am talking about. The fellow it am talking about was a real Socialist.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Not like Kinnock!

Mr. Haynes: We are all Socialists over here—except this lot behind me. I am expressing my view. It may be a bit different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who is on the Front Bench. He is speaking on behalf of the party. I thought that we could express our views in this place. I usually do. I did this afternoon with the Secretary of State for Energy. I told him where to get off. That was necessary. Once again, I was representing my constituents.
I shall be here only another three years if the Prime Minister is prepared to go all the way. I shall enjoy those three years. I shall express my opinion forcefully. I think that hon. Members agree that I do just that. I shall continue to do so provided, of course, I catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair. I never speak without being called. I behave myself in the Chamber, as do many others. [Interruption.] I do not do things like that. The hon. Member for Northampton, North, with his coat of many colours, should have worn a rose today, like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen); it


would have looked very nice. But I am straying from my argument about taxation, and I want to save you from having to pull me into line, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have made my point, but I shall continue to make my point about Europe telling us what to do. I shall decide for myself what I do and I shall express my views on behalf of my constituents because I believe that they do not need telling what to do.
As I told the hon. Member for Southend, East last week, we stand side by side and arm in arm in the argument about Europe. If Europe would leave us alone, we could get on with the job and do the right thing on behalf of the people we represent here.

Mr. Lilley: The debate has been remarkable because the proposal from the Commission has been rejected not only by the Government and the Opposition, but even by the representative of the Liberal party. If that is not a message which the Commission should take to heart, nothing is.
In response to the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and one or two others, I should make it clear that the Government are wholeheartedly opposed to any form of tax evasion. It is right and proper for national Governments and Governments in co-operation to act against tax evasion. Nor are we against withholding tax at source, where it is appropriate. We have the composite rate tax which could be described as a form of withholding tax. We use it where we believe that it is effective and where it does not have damaging practical consequences, as it would if it were extended to commercial markets and large deposits.
We believe that Governments should co-operate and we have one of the largest networks of double taxation agreements with other countries which enable us to co-operate in collecting taxation and preventing evasion. It is right that that should continue.
We are quite happy to consider the proposals, although we have reservations about some aspects in the second directive. We certainly have no difficulties with their approach; there are merely practical problems in a directive which has not yet been given very thorough consideration by the Commission or by member states.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked me for an assurance that the proposal required unanimity and could not be imposed on us by the

workings of the European Court. I give him that assurance. In the case of taxation, the operations of the European Court apply only when a directive has been brought into effect by unanimous assent by the member states. Then the court has the duty to interpret it and, in the event of any dispute, rule on the precise meaning of the directive. As a result of such rulings, it was determined that a directive agreed to in 1977 under the Labour Government had a wider sense than was originally thought, in the case of the ruling on opticians and spectacles, and the ruling that we are currently putting through the House applying VAT to property and construction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made a number of valuable points, in particular that competition between national Governments in their setting of tax rates is not necessarily a bad thing as it can provide downward pressure on tax when normally all the pressures are upwards. That is particularly important given that Europe is a trading community which has to be competitive with the rest of the world. If Europe were ever to believe that it was immune to competition from the rest of the world and set tax rates which would render it uncompetitive with the rest of the world it would put itself at a grave disadvantage. So long as tax rates are primarily set by national Governments taking account of their competitive position in Europe and against the rest of the world, that danger will not arise.
I am grateful to the House for largely supporting the Government's position on withholding tax. The message that the House has given will contribute to a sensible decision on the issue in Brussels.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4763/89 relating to taxation of savings; and supports the Government's view that the proposals are unnecessary, ineffective and damaging.

EMPLOYMENT

Ordered,
That Mr. Andrew Rowe be discharged from the Employment Committee and Mr. William Cash be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE

Ordered,
That Mr. David Winnick be discharged from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and Ms. Diane Abbott be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Child Abuse (Government Research)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Mr. Graham Allen: It is a rare opportunity for a Member to draw an Adjournment debate and I hope that I do justice to that opportunity by raising an important topic.
The sexual abuse of children is a difficult, sensitive policy area on which I can claim no expertise. Like many Members of Parliament, it was not until a particularly horrendous constituency case came to light that my education began. In that case the perpetrators received long gaol sentences, and rightly so. It falls to Parliament to look more deeply at this issue—not merely to pick up the pieces, but to initiate an active programme of preventive measures after thorough research. That will reduce the risks facing children to the lowest humanly possible. We can help future potential victims. There is no place for crocodile tears, sympathy without funding or condemnation without action.
It is customary to say that this is a party political issue, but such genteel courtesies have no place in such a desperately serious matter. I unreservedly condemn the Conservative Government's wholly inadequate response to this phenomenon, but make it clear that the next Labour Government will be subject to equally vehement exposure if they fail to respond with the urgency and commitment that the issue deserves.
My calculations of the amounts spent indicate a pathetic level of Government support for research into the sexual abuse of children. The level of spending is a national scandal and disgrace, and amounts to less than £1 million from the Department of Health over 10 years. The Government may regard that as some sort of saving, but even at the crude economic level the logic is flawed, for where the Government do not help, other agencies have to step in, often in an unco-ordinated and wasteful way—county councils' social services departments, charities, private institutions and academic workers, all re-inventing the wheel and duplicating their efforts, despite desperately scarce resources.
The Government have a role. Why should the third international conference on incest and related problems, which is taking place in Britain this August, depend wholly on voluntary contributions and fees? Why are the Government not taking the initiative and supporting such conferences? Why is the leading centre for rehabilitating sexual offenders, the Gracewell clinic, privately run? In the United States of America, Australia and Europe Governments of all colours live up to their responsibilities. In Ontario the state institute for child sex abuse is funded to the tune of £1 million a year. Nothing less than that is acceptable for the United Kingdom.
We and future generations of children need a national institute for the study of sexual abuse of children. It needs to be properly funded and its long-term future guaranteed. The alternative is the Haile Selassie approach, where the Prime Minister ventures out of her enclave with a cheque for £800,000 for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—culled, incidentally, from existing, not new, moneys.
Such an auction for resources engenders competitive, not co-operative, efforts, even among those most

committed in this area. At best, it skews what little money there is towards London, while at the same time question marks are placed over the Inner London education authority child guidance centres. There is also little cheer in the National Health Service review, where child psychiatry does not even rate a mention.
I have spent little time on the scale of the problem, nor with any of the heartbreaking individual cases, but to illustrate the extent of the problem I shall quote from the Incest Crisis Line document. It states:
At least one in ten children in this country are sexually abused by the time they reach their early teens, the vast majority of those are abused by people known to them and trusted by them … The victims of such behaviour are both male and female, and follow no particular age, race, colour, religion, social or class structure, in fact, abuse of this kind is relentlessly democratic … Remember, 75 per cent. of this world's prostitutes, almost all male prostitutes, 45 per cent. of drug and alcohol abusers, 40 per cent. of children in care, 40 per cent. of prison inmates and 30 per cent. of rape victims were abused sexually as children. Just think what social ills could be eradicated if we were all to deal with this problem in the right way.
As politicians, the right way for us must be to place the responsibility on Parliament, directly on the Government and specifically on the Department of Health.
Examining the matter from a different perspective, may I say that the magnificent social services department in Nottinghamshire—rightly praised by the Prime Minister —has informed me that the number of children registered as suffering, or likely to suffer sexual abuse, has doubled in the past two years.

Mr. Alan Meale: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Allen: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) in the Chamber. I know that this matter is of special importance to him.

Mr. Meale: I congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving this debate on an important topic. Is he aware that not only in the centre of Nottinghamshire but throughout the county there is a clear increase in child abuse? Is he further aware of the pressure that has been placed on social workers in social services departments all over the county? The crisis has reached such proportions that in some offices social workers are terrified to lift the telephone because they know that they will have to take on the case from stage one right through to the end, which can be a harrowing experience. Social workers are leaving the profession because of that stress.

Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically stout defence of Nottinghamshire social services department and, as usual, has put his finger on several points. First, the incidence of sexual abuse in our county has increased from just over 100 two years ago to 200 now. There is great stress, not just on social workers but on all those involved—the police, foster parents and others. Cases in Nottinghamshire vary in age from 17-year-olcls to babies in nappies, only a few weeks old, suffering sexual abuse. More than half the cases in Nottinghamshire involve children under the age of nine. Any human being with any sensitivity—even a highly trained professional—suffers immense stress when dealing with such cases. I know that the caring people involved in the case in my constituency to which I referred suffered immense personal hardship and, in some cases, domestic damage as a result of their efforts.
The authorities are improving in a number of respects —for example, in their ability to investigate these acts; sadly, they do not lack the practice. Nevertheless, there are ways in which Government research can help in the process of discovery and in spreading knowledge. I shall point to one or two areas where more work is necessary and more Government support is essential if the work required is to be done. For example, we need to be able to assess the risks of keeping a child in a family where parental bonds are strong. What rehabilitation, if any, is possible or advisable if the child is not to suffer the additional problem of being separated from his or her family? That is a delicate question. A great deal of in-depth research is needed before social workers and others put their heads on the line, as a judgment based on wrong information may be catastrophic for the child placed back with the family.
Another matter that needs to be looked into is the compulsive nature of the offence. What happens after prison if perpetrators have not changed or even recognised that their behaviour is deviant? How effective is prison when compared with group work or individual therapy? What can be done to reduce or eliminate any reoffending by examining and identifying predicting factors? For example, a relationship might be found between violent offences and sexual abuse, and perhaps there are other characteristics that may help us to predict potential incidents of child abuse.
Another vital question, on which a great deal of research is needed, is where and when the sexual abuse of children begins. What is the mix of psychological, environmental and even biological factors that needs to be identified and tackled if we are to pre-empt abuse? What is the link between being a victim of abuse and becoming a perpetrator of abuse? What is the knock-on effect across the generations?
What is the effect of the availability of child pornography on people who are susceptible to becoming perpetrators of child abuse? Even more arcane, what is the effect of a culture that lays down Victorian, medieval or even pre-biblical roles for men and women?
A further subject of research is the effective placement and care of victims. That, too, needs thorough investigation. An abused child put into care with delinquents or even adolescent perpetrators of abuse is bound to do less well than those in special residential care perhaps—for example, in a girls' establishment with a staff composed entirely of women. Examining the training of fosterers is also important. We owe so much to those who foster abused children. We need to ensure that the long-term damage to victims can be identified by the fosterers and that they are adequately trained to treat the children in the most effective and sensitive way.

Mr. Meale: Might we not also appeal to the Minister to consider the protection of the child by the removal of the perpetrator from the home? It would take a considerable amount of central Government finance to allow social services departments to open holding homes in which to put suspected perpetrators until they are found guilty or not guilty but the child could then try, with the help of social services, to get over his or her trauma at home.

Mr. Allen: This area has been subject to so many taboos that one would have thought that the sexual abuse of children was a modern phenomenon, but it is not. We must discuss and investigate the subject and that is why the Government's research programme is the key.
We must investigate the possible effect on the child of its removal, or the removal of one of its parents, from a stable environment. That may be an inappropriate phrase to use in the circumstances, but it is an accurate one. In certain circumstances such removal compounds the injuries suffered by the child. Equally there may be other effects caused by the removal of the parent. Those are areas where we cannot have a reflex response. If we are to tackle the questions in the most appropriate way, we need a serious and long-term study funded by the Government. The most appropriate way is not always the one that we first think of, but a research programme would eliminate that possibility.
Many of the youngsters are, of course, coerced into sexual activity. Obviously that affects their views of adults, even those seeking to help them. How do we best train foster parents, for example, to cope with that situation and to overcome that problem? Once again the need for a national research resource for such analysis cries out for recognition.
On training and expertise there is no bank of co-ordinated assistance available for social service departments and other agencies. In my constituency there was little external expertise and advice available when a major case came to light. Even after the successful conclusion of that case, to my knowledge no contact was made by the Government. There was no systematic attempt to spread the lessons and the best practices after that case. Such a free market approach is immoral and unforgivable.
The limited research that is taking place is, of course, welcome and valuable, but so many vital areas are neglected. Another area that should be explored is the vulnerability of the woman at home where the male is the perpetrator. Many of the women are ignorant of the abuse, they may be colluding, feel powerless or are frightened to stop it and report it. Once again we must know the facts so that we are better prepared to assist women in that situation.
We must also ensure that children are more able to disclose offences—90 per cent. disclose to teachers, a parent, the police, neighbours, school friends or fosterers. Many of those groups could be trained in the techniques that make disclosure even easier. To do that we need to know more about the form in which abuse begins as victims are often more willing to disclose the less serious abuse than they are the more serious. We need to have more information to train people to detect the behavioural signs that will give an early warning of any sexual abuse, for example, over-sexual behaviour in children, bed wetting, mistrust and a withdrawn nature.
The expertise developed from the hundreds of cases and the 20 or so child abuse inquiries held since 1979 should not be dissipated. There are 1,000 questions and a 1,000 areas of initial research that could form the base for the answers to those questions.
I call upon the Government and I call upon the Minister tonight to commit himself and his Department to re-examine the level of funding for their research programme into the sexual abuse of children, to consider developing a national centre for the study of child sexual


abuse and now to make a serious effort to tackle the problem. This generation of children and the generations of children to come deserve nothing less.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this important debate. He and I are at least agreed that this is a serious subject and one to which the House should frequently return.
I shall deal first with a point made by the hon. Gentleman at the outset of his speech. I understood him to say that research resources were being skewed towards London. He specifically cited the Prime Minister's recent announcement that £800,000 was being made available to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I should make it plain that the money is for the NSPCC's national training centre in Leicester, not London. We have committed £125,000 this year from central health service funding to the development of a centre of excellence in child protection in Newcastle. We certainly reject any attempt to argue that research resources are skewed towards the capital because that is not so.
I reject the assertion that we have been, and are, neglecting research into child sexual abuse. In the minutes remaining to me, I shall seek to argue that we have a well-founded and properly co-ordinated research programme.
The House will know that research on child sexual abuse has only in recent years begun to develop. The initial interest was in the United States, and that country is still pre-eminent in the field with a substantial and growing corpus of research, much of which is of relevance to our work in this country. However, the contribution made by British researchers in this country is growing rapidly, and I think it is now generally recognised that the United Kingdom is second only to the United States in terms of both the quantity and quality of research into child sexual abuse. This was underlined only last month at the second European conference on child abuse and neglect in Brussels, where more research and practice papers were presented from the United Kingdom than from any other country; and at which the first European scholarship on child abuse was presented to a British researcher, Jacqui Roberts of Dundee university. I am sure that the House would wish to join me in congratulating her on her extremely valuable contribution to the subject.
I should emphasise that in order to ensure that projects are chosen which will add to the knowledge base that already exists, such projects need to be considered properly and thoroughly before they are commissioned. In order to achieve this, the Department of Health has available a number of eminent professional and scientific advisers from whom advice is sought. In addition, the Department holds regular meetings with a research liaison group on child care which contains service advisers from the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and scientific advisers from the Institute of Child Health and the universities of Bristol, York and Leicester. Senior officials also attend from other Government Departments. All projects are thoroughly

scrutinised through this mechanism to ensure that they are likely to provide sound and reliable results, and do not duplicate work already done or in progress.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, in research, it is extremely important to ensure that it is not only carefully prepared with the best possible academic advice so that old ground is not recovered, but properly co-ordinated. We must not merely throw money at research, but ensure that it is thoroughly prepared.
As part of the Department's aim to attract more relevant projects from organisations undertaking research, child protection was made a priority theme for research for 1989. This has stimulated interest from academic institutions and other research organisations and the Department has received several new proposals, which we are in the process of considering.
The Department of Health, which has the lead in child care matters, has put together a full and effective programme of child protection research in recent years. The hon. Member will recall that these studies were detailed by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in response to a question from him on 27 January, and included a number of studies which related to both physical and sexual abuse. The total cost of studies completed in this field since 1980 is £180,000.
My hon. and learned Friend's reply also listed the projects which were currently in progress and under consideration. A number of these covered both physical and sexual abuse of children, but included was a study by Professor Philip Graham and Dr. Arnon Bentovirn of the Institute of Child Health on intervention in child sexual abuse, which looked at the characteristics and outcomes of a treatment programme for child sexual abuse victims and their families; and a study by Dr. Marjory Smith of the Institute of Child Health of normal sexual knowledge in children, which aims to collect systematic and reliable information on sexual knowledge in children and behaviour in families to see whether it is possible to identify children who have been sexually abused on the basis of their sexual knowledge and behaviour.
The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the importance of research, and I agree with him. These two studies alone are expected to cost about £225,000. Total expenditure committed to current research projects by my Department is more than £500,000—

Mr. Meale: Peanuts.

Mr. Freeman: I do not agree. Research in this field has developed only in recent years. It is extremely important that it be founded on the best possible academic advice and properly co-ordinated with the private sector and other Government Departments. The Government do not believe that one can just throw money at the problem.
Among the projects listed as under consideration by my hon. and learned Friend, I am pleased to be able to say that two, on parental perceptions in child abuse and parental participation in case conferences, have now been commissioned. Of the projects which are still under consideration, in relation to the feasibility study on prevalence of child sexual abuse a research brief is being prepared for discussion with interested researchers, and we hope to commission a study in the course of this year.
In order to ensure that the Government have a co-ordinated, effective and comprehensive approach to all child care policy matters an inter-departmental group on


child abuse was set up in March 1987, comprising senior officials in Departments with responsibilities for children. The group has provided a valuable forum in which policies and practices in the respective areas of responsibility of individual Departments has been developed consistently and with due regard for each other. The group meets at about quarterly intervals and discusses a number of child care issues, including research. It was largely through the group that Departments produced co-ordinated and complimentary guidance on the handling of cases of child abuse and child sexual abuse from this Department and the Welsh Office to relevant agencies, in response to Lord Justice Butler-Sloss's excellent report on Cleveland.
As part of this co-ordinated approach to research into child sexual abuse, I know that the Home Office has in progress a research study on the effectiveness of video links in child sexual abuse cases which will cost £45,000.
The hon. Gentleman has asked the Department of Health a number of parliamentary questions, at least two of which related to the importance of video links. I am pleased that my colleagues in the Home Office have decided to pursue this important aspect of research. The Home Office is also considering the commission of further research studies, including one on the prevention of child sexual abuse, which will cost about £90,000.
The Scottish Office has supported a number of continuing projects, including the professional identification of, and response to, child sexual abuse in Scotland, and a longitudinal study of a group of sexually abused children in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will understand the term "longitudinal"; it refers to a study over a period of the development of a particular group of children and the potential effect of abuse on their behaviour—

Mr. Allen: rose�ž

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall try to bring my remarks to a close.
The Scottish Office has also identified themes on the management and treatment of child sexual abuse and research into decision making in the children's hearing system which it is hoped will attract a number of research proposals.
The Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland, has funded a project on child sexual abuse incidence in Northern Ireland, and that is expected to be published shortly. It may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House if I place in the Library by the end of this week a comprehensive list of research completed, under way and contemplated by all Government Departments.
I have provided a rather brief survey of the programme of research which is in hand or being considered. Work in this field will, of course, continue to develop. My Department is aware of the necessity of looking forward in these matters and is already considering, for example, the need for new research that will be needed when the Children Bill is enacted.
It is important not only that good, effective research should be undertaken, but that the results of that research should be properly reflected in practice and in the planning and delivery of services. To this end my Department produced in 1985 "Social Work Decisions in Child Care", which provided a digest of recent research findings and their implications and was widely welcomed. I am glad to tell the House that a new paper will shortly be published. I hope that that is helpful to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to One o'clock.